Lung cancer patients' decisions about clinical trials and the theory of planned behavior

A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators impacting patient enrolment in clinical trials for lung cancer

PURPOSE

Clinical research trials are needed to enhance the medical care and treatment for lung cancer, which remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. While clinical trials allow for the development of novel therapies to treat cancer, the recruitment of lung cancer patients to trials is low. This review aimed to identify and synthesise the available literature concerning barriers and facilitators affecting lung cancer patients' decisions to enrol in clinical trials to guide future cancer research efforts.

METHODS

Four databases were systematically searched: Academic Search Complete, CINHAL, PubMed, and PsycINFO in August 2023. A supplemental grey literature search was also conducted alongside this. Articles were quality appraised using CASP and JMI checklists, and results were narratively synthesised.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles of varied design met the inclusion criteria, and results were mapped onto the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) Model to help structure and conceptualise review findings. Evidence suggests that the decision to enrol in a trial is multifaceted and informed by: when and how study information is presented, travel and trial eligibility, and altruistic hopes and fears.

CONCLUSIONS

There is need to address the many different concerns that lung cancer patients have about participating in a clinical trial through the supply of accessible and timely trial information, and via the reduction of travel, expansion of study eligibility criteria, and recognition of a person's altruistic wishes, hopes, fears, and family-oriented concerns. Future research should aim to work alongside lung cancer patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders to increase research accessibility.

Motivators and Barriers to COVID-19 Research Participation at the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Black Communities in the USA: an Exploratory Study

INTRODUCTION

Black individuals in the USA continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials with low participation rates in COVID-19 research studies. Identifying participation barriers is necessary as we develop more vaccines and other treatments to address SARS-CoV-2 and associated sequelae. The purpose of this explorative, qualitative study is to apply the theory of planned behavior to understand motivators and barriers to COVID-19 research participation at the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding these factors is important to ultimately lead to increased vaccination rates among Black individuals, especially in strategies that increase preparedness in response to public health emergencies.

METHODS

A phenomenological qualitative study design was conducted between May and September 2020 among 62 Black participants. The participants were purposefully selected from vulnerable subgroups of the Black population: essential workers, young adults, parents, and individuals with underlying medical conditions. An inductive-deductive content analysis approach was used to analyze the interview data.

RESULTS

Majority (54.8%) reported willingness to participate in COVID-19 research. The following themes emerged from the interviews: (1) positivity toward research exists yet fear and distrust remain; (2) views toward COVID-19 research vary; (3) motivators to COVID-19 research participation; (4) barriers to COVID-19 research participation; and (5) potential strategies to increase COVID-19 research participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, majority of the participants reported willingness to participate in research with observational research being the most commonly cited type of research. Providing data on the attitudes and perspectives of Black individuals and their intentions for COVID-19 research participation using TPB informs intervention targets for healthcare providers and policy makers for an equitable emergency response. Our results suggest improved communication on the research process, research opportunities, and participant testimonial through trusted sources could increase the likelihood of participation. This is especially important as we continue through the pandemic and new treatments for COVID-19 vaccines become readily available.

Interventions supporting cancer patients in making decisions regarding participation in clinical trials - a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Existing research on the perspectives of patients with cancer and health care professionals indicates that patient decision making on cancer clinical trial participation is a complex process and may be poorly understood, possibly compromising their decision to participate. This systematic review investigates interventions that support patients in their decision-making processes regarding whether to participate or not and assesses the qualities of the interventions, measures used and related outcomes.

METHODS

Six databases were systematically searched and only studies evaluating interventions that support the decision making of adult patients offered to enter a cancer clinical trial were included. Ten articles met the criteria and were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach.

RESULTS

The research focus of the included studies reflected the multifactorial nature of what constitutes support for patient decision making in terms of entering a cancer clinical trial. However, most interventions were based on the hypothesis that more information leads to support in decision making, and did not take other factors, such as the relationship to the clinical staff or relatives, the patients' strong hope for therapeutic benefit or other existential needs into account. The interventions were primarily based on a specific tool, executed once, which seems to imply that decisions need only to be supported once and not at several time points throughout the decision process, and did not assess the importance of a patient's family- or social relations. Moreover, few interventions focused on the patients' counselling experience or assessed patient preferences in relation to decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate a lack of research on interventions to support patients' decision making that takes other factors, apart from improving knowledge of trials, into account. Limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of decision support interventions to improve the experience of support in adult patients with cancer. Interventions that take patient preferences in relation to decision making and the social context of decision processes into account need to be developed and assessed.

Patient perspectives on window of opportunity clinical trials in early-stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

Window of opportunity trials (WOT) are increasingly common in oncology research. In WOT participants receive a drug between diagnosis and anti-cancer treatment, usually for the purpose of investigating that drugs effect on cancer biology. This qualitative study aimed to understand patient perspectives on WOT.

METHODS

We recruited adults diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer awaiting definitive therapy at a single-academic medical center to participate in semi-structured interviews. Thematic and content analyses were performed to identify attitudes and factors that would influence decisions about WOT participation.

RESULTS

We interviewed 25 women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. The most common positive attitudes toward trial participation were a desire to contribute to research and a hope for personal benefit, while the most common concerns were the potential for side effects and how they might impact fitness for planned treatment. Participants indicated family would be an important normative factor in decision-making and, during the COVID-19 pandemic, deemed the absence of family members during clinic visits a barrier to enrollment. Factors that could hinder participation included delay in standard treatment and the requirement for additional visits or procedures. Ultimately, most interviewees stated they would participate in a WOT if offered (N = 17/25).

CONCLUSION

In this qualitative study, interviewees weighed altruism and hypothetical personal benefit against the possibility of side effect from a WOT. In-person family presence during trial discussion, challenging during COVID-19, was important for many. Our results may inform trial design and communication approaches in future window of opportunity efforts.

Living with mesothelioma: A systematic review of patient and caregiver psychosocial support needs

OBJECTIVE

Practice guidelines emphasize the importance of investigating psychosocial distress in mesothelioma patients and family caregivers. We aimed to synthesize research on the psychosocial support needs of mesothelioma patients and their family caregivers.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with a narrative synthesis and quality assessment. The review process adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, PsychArticles, and PsycINFO were searched until December 2020 and 37 studies in English met inclusion criteria. Most (n = 24) included mesothelioma patients as a very small proportion of their cancer samples. A narrative synthesis was conducted on the 13 studies including only mesothelioma patients (n = 297) and/or caregivers (n = 82). Patients and caregivers want improvements in the diagnosis delivery and access to palliative care. Patients want emotional support, patient-centered treatment, improved information about illness progression and death, and to meet others with mesothelioma. Caregivers want one-on-one practical and emotional support. Study quality varied.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies focus on the psychosocial support needs relevant to mesothelioma. Mesothelioma patients and family caregivers highlight targeted psychosocial care as an unmet need.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Efforts are required to design and test psychosocial interventions for this vulnerable and overlooked group.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020167852).

Behavioural approaches to recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a systematic mapping review

OBJECTIVES

To identify studies that applied behavioural approaches to issues of recruitment and/or retention to trials; to describe these approaches; and to identify gaps for future research.

DESIGN

Systematic mapping review of research undertaken in clinical trials within peer-reviewed sources. Review participants were individuals involved in clinical trials, including trial staff, participants, potential participants and former participants.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Web of Science and ASSIA from inception to 15 January 2020 with no date or language restrictions.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies within the context of clinical trials reporting the barriers/facilitators to recruitment and retention, or developing/evaluating solutions to said barriers/facilitators, using a behavioural approach.

RESULTS

31 articles were included. Recruitment-focused studies (n=22, 71%) represented the majority. Studies tended to focus on participant behaviours (n=22, 71%). Underserved populations (n=11, 35%) were a notable subset of studies. Most studies (n=23, 74%) were exploratory but those that evaluated interventions (n=8, 26%) often did so within underserved populations (n=6). A majority of studies (n=30, 97%) did not specify their behaviours consistent with guidelines from behavioural scientists. The most used approaches were social cognitive theory (n=8, 26%), the theory of planned behaviour (n=6, 19%) and the theoretical domains framework (n=5, 16%).

CONCLUSIONS

A range of behavioural approaches have been applied to recruitment and retention to trials. The multitude of recruitment research here is consistent with trials research generally and emphasises the need for research into retention. Authors report target behaviours minimally, which is not conducive to replication. Further research should build on lessons here, such as clearly specifying behaviours. Increased methodological rigour and transparency will lead to robust evidence bases and less research waste in poor recruitment and retention. Overall, trials informed by behavioural approaches promises to be efficient and more participant focused.

Patients' experiences of the decision-making process for clinical trial participation

Clinical decision‐making about participating in a clinical trial is a complex process influenced by overwhelming information about prognosis, disease, and treatment options. The study aimed to explore patients' experiences of the decision‐making process when patients are presented with the opportunity to participate in a cancer clinical trial and to shed light on how patients experience the health communication, the nurse's role, and the physician's role. A qualitative study design was applied. Nine patients with advanced cancer were interviewed after being informed about their treatment options. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The results showed that patients made treatment decisions mainly guided by their emotions and trust in the physician. Furthermore, the physicians had a great impact on the decisions, and the nurse's role was associated with conversations about how to manage life. The study highlights the importance of talking about prognosis and addressing the patient's existential issues, particularly in this context of advanced cancer. The study elucidates a need for healthcare professionals to engage in health communication about life when it is coming to an end.

Transparency, trust and minimizing burden to increase recruitment and retention in trials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient perspectives on recruitment and retention in clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of qualitative studies that reported the perspective of adult patients with any health condition who accepted or declined to participate in clinical trials.

RESULTS

Sixty-three articles involving 1681 adult patients were included. Six themes were identified. Four themes reflected barriers: ambiguity of context and benefit - patients were unaware of the research question and felt pressured in making decisions; lacking awareness of opportunities - some believed health professionals obscured trials opportunities, or felt confused because of language barriers; wary of added burden - patients were without capacity because of sickness or competing priorities; and skepticism, fear and mistrust - patients feared loss of privacy, were suspicious of doctor's motivation, afraid of being a guinea pig, and disengaged from not knowing outcomes. Two themes captured facilitators: building confidence - patients hoped for better treatment, were supported from family members and trusted medical staff; and social gains and belonging to the community - altruism, a sense of belonging and peer encouragement motivated participation in trials.

CONCLUSION

Improving the visibility and transparency of trials, supporting informed decision making, minimizing burden, and ensuring confidence and trust may improve patient participation in trials.

Deciding to Enrol in a Cancer Trial: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies

Background

Clinical trials are essential for the advancement of cancer treatments; however, participation by patients is suboptimal. Currently, there is a lack of synthesized qualitative review evidence on the patient experience of trial entry from which to further develop decision support. The aim of this review is to synthesise literature reporting experiences of participants when deciding to enrol in a cancer clinical trial in order to inform practice.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies were conducted to describe the experiences of adult cancer patients who decided to enrol in a clinical trial of an anti-cancer treatment.

Results

Forty studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Three themes were identified representing the overarching domains of experience when deciding to enrol in a cancer trial: 1) need for trial information; (2) trepidation towards participation; and (3) justifying the decision. The process of deciding to enrol in a clinical trial is one marked by uncertainty, emotional distress and driven by the search for a cure.

Conclusion

Findings from this review show that decision support modelled by shared decision-making and the quality of a shared decision needs to be accompanied by tailored or personalised psychosocial and supportive care. Although the decision process bears similarities to theoretical processes outlined in decision-making frameworks, there are a lack of supportive interventions for cancer patients that are adapted to the clinical trial context. Theory-based interventions are urgently required to support the specific needs of patients deciding whether to participate in cancer trials.

A mixed-methods systematic review of patients' experience of being invited to participate in surgical randomised controlled trials

RATIONALE

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical interventions are increasing. Such trials encounter challenges that are not present in RCTs of non-surgical interventions because of the nature of the intervention. Several studies have explored patients' experiences of surgical trials to improve recruitment or identify barriers and facilitators to research in this setting. Synthesizing these studies may reveal further insights or confirm whether saturation of relevant themes has been achieved.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to understand the experiences of adults who are invited to participate in surgical RCTs.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched to identify articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Assessment of quality was conducted with studies given an overall quality rating of good, fair, or poor. A segregated approach was used to synthesize the data. This method included a thematic synthesis of the qualitative data and a narrative review of the quantitative data. The findings of both syntheses were then integrated.

RESULTS

Thirty-four articles reporting 28 trials were included. This review found that the decision to participate in a surgical trial is influenced by multiple factors including patients' individual circumstances and attitudes, and the characteristics of the trial itself. The study identified three themes which encompass both qualitative and quantitative findings. These themes reveal it was important for patients to i) make sense of the trial and trial processes, ii) weigh up the risks and benefits of their different treatment options and participation, and iii) trust the trial and staff.

CONCLUSIONS

A patient-centred approach to trial recruitment may help staff build trusting relationships with patients and address their individual concerns about the trial and the risks and benefits of participation.

Cancer patients' perceptions of factors influencing their decisions on participation in clinical drug trials: A qualitative meta-synthesis

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To examine cancer patients' perceptions of factors that may influence their decisions on participating in phase I-III clinical drug trials.

BACKGROUND

The number of cancer participants in clinical drug trials has increased rapidly in Denmark in recent years. The rights, safety and well-being of patients considering participation are protected by the international, ethical and scientific principles. A meta-synthesis was conducted to enable health professionals to support cancer patients who are considering trial participation in accordance with the above principles.

DESIGN

Meta-synthesis.

METHODS

A qualitative meta-synthesis, as described by Sandelowski and Barroso, was conducted based on a literature search in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Nine reports were found eligible and were included. The PRISMA checklist was used.

RESULTS

A framework was developed, and patients' perceptions of the factors influencing their decisions were identified, namely patients' perceptions of their relatives, the physician, the hope of therapeutic benefit, altruism, having other options and living with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that cancer patients' decisions on participation in clinical drug trials are influenced by their perceptions of trust towards the physician, their relatives' attitudes and the consequences participation might have for their families. Patients are motivated to participate due to the hope of therapeutic benefit and for altruistic reasons. The factors influencing their decisions to participate include a cost-benefit consideration, which in turn may be subject to the patient's perception of having other options available besides participation. This may be related to the patient's attitude towards living with cancer, and the decision can be a way of trying to cope with the psychological aspects of living with cancer.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The results of this meta-synthesis offer insight into patients' perceptions of what may influence their decisions, and they enable health professionals to support patients making such decisions.

Multimedia psychoeducation for patients with cancer who are eligible for clinical trials: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Supporting patients' decision making about clinical trials may enhance trial participation. To date, few theory-based interventions have been tested to address this issue. The objective of the current study was aimed to evaluate the effect of a multimedia psychoeducation (MP) intervention, relative to a print education (PE) intervention, on patients' decision support needs and attitudes about clinical trials.

METHODS

Patients with cancer who were eligible for participation in a National Cancer Institute therapeutic cancer clinical trial were recruited through the nationwide University of Rochester Cancer Center National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program from 2014 to 2016 and were randomized to the MP or PE intervention. Assessments at baseline (before intervention), postintervention, and at a 2-month follow-up visit included patients' decision support needs, attitudes regarding clinical trials, and clinical trial participation.

RESULTS

In total, 418 patients with various types of cancer were recruited (ages 26-89 years). Relative to the PE intervention, the MP intervention did not significantly affect decision support needs. However, patients in the MP arm reported significantly more positive attitudes about clinical trials and were more likely to participate in a clinical trial than those in the PE arm (69% vs 62%; P = .01). Furthermore, an improvement in attitudes about clinical trials significantly mediated the effect of the intervention on participation in clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The MP intervention was able to improve patient attitudes toward clinical trials compared with the PE intervention, and this improvement led to increased rates of participation in trials. The MP intervention could be disseminated to improve attitudes about clinical trials among patients with cancer.

Understanding the Role of Message Frames on African-American Willingness to Participate in a Hypothetical Diabetes Prevention Study

The objective of this research was to evaluate the impact of message framing (e.g., highlighting health disparities vs. progress toward reducing disparities) on willingness to enroll in a hypothetical research study. African-American (AA, n = 1513) and White (n = 362) adults completed an online survey about diabetes, health behaviors including physical activity, and attitudes about research. AA participants were randomized to view a general message (same message as provided to all White participants) or 1 of 4 alternate messages that framed the need for people to participate in research in terms of race and/or health disparities. Among AAs, there were no differences in willingness to enroll in the study by message frame. However, individual characteristics including younger age, female sex, attitudes about research, a sense of obligation, and community responsibility were significant predictors of willingness to enroll in the study. AA participants who received the general message were equally willing as White participants to enroll in the study. Highlighting race and health disparities in study recruitment materials may not be needed to increase interest among AAs. Factors beyond race appear to be stronger motivators for participation. Unlike previous research, racial framing did not suppress motivation to enroll in our hypothetical study.

Reality Versus Grant Application Research "Plans"

This article describes the implementation of the American Indian mHealth Smoking Dependence Study focusing on the differences between what was written in the grant application compared to what happened in reality. The study was designed to evaluate a multicomponent intervention involving 256 participants randomly assigned to one of 15 groups. Participants received either a minimal or an intense level of four intervention components: (1) nicotine replacement therapy, (2) precessation counseling, (3) cessation counseling, and (4) mHealth text messaging. The project team met via biweekly webinars as well as one to two in-person meetings per year throughout the study. The project team openly shared progress and challenges and collaborated to find proactive solutions to address challenges as compared to what was planned in the original grant application. The project team used multiple strategies to overcome unanticipated intervention issues: (1) cell phone challenges, (2) making difficult staffing decisions, (3) survey lessons, (4) nicotine replacement therapy, (5) mHealth text messages, (6) motivational interviewing counseling sessions, and (7) use of e-cigarettes. Smoking cessation studies should be designed based on the grant plans. However, on the ground reality issues needed to be addressed to assure the scientific rigor and innovativeness of this study.

Cancer patients' fears related to clinical trial participation: a qualitative study

Patient-related barriers have hindered cancer patients' abilities to participate in the decision-making processes to participate in clinical trials. However, little is known about patients' emotional barrier of fear and how physicians influence this barrier. We conducted 48 in-depth interviews with cancer patients to determine their knowledge and attitudes about participating in clinical trials, transcribed interviews verbatim, and qualitatively analyzed the transcripts using content analysis. For the purpose of this manuscript, we focused on findings related to the role of the emotional barrier of fear in cancer patients' perceptions of participating in clinical trials. The majority of cancer patients (n = 40, 83.3%) discussed fears surrounding clinical trials, particularly as it related to cancer diagnosis, clinical trial participation, and fear of the unknown. In conclusion, providers might consider addressing the role of fear in patients' considering participating in a clinical trial.

Power of an effective clinical conversation: improving accrual onto clinical trials

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is actively transforming clinical trials to revitalize the clinical trials system and improve patient accrual. For more than 30 years, NCI has provided information and communication resources about cancer clinical trials. The Institute supports a clinical trials Web site (www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials) that receives nearly a half million page views a month. In addition, NCI's Cancer Information Service (800-4-CANCER, chat and e-mail) responds to 1,750 clinical trial inquiries every month. Although these numbers suggest that a high volume of clinical trial information is being exchanged between NCI, the public, and providers, most patients decide whether to participate in clinical trials during the patient-provider interaction.