Why are (or are not) patients given the option to enter clinical trials?

Provider-reported challenges and barriers to referring patients to neuro-oncology clinical trials: a report from the Society for Neuro-Oncology member survey

Background

Whereas much information exists in general oncology regarding the barriers to clinical trial referral, those specific to neuro-oncology are not yet well known. Trial barriers lead to lower patient accrual, which can lead to less-efficient clinical trials and slower improvement of the standard of care, which may negatively effect patient outcomes. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the clinical trial referral barriers that are specific to neuro-oncology to improve trial accrual rates.

Methods

An electronic survey was completed by 426 Society for Neuro-Oncology members, of whom 372 are included in this report. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and proportions, were used to characterize our survey sample.

Results

Only 22% of participants reported that their center tracks referrals to clinical trials inside as well as outside their own institution, with an estimate of less than 30% of patients referred. The most commonly reported provider-referral barrier was finding ongoing trials in the patient's geographic area. Providers also perceived that while considering participation in a trial their patients may not qualify for any trials, and if they do, may be unable to travel to the study site for follow-up. Additionally, practice location and provider and institution type all influenced referral patterns.

Conclusion

Efforts should be made to broaden trial availability and eligibility criteria, improve trial referral tracking, and ensure patients and their caregivers understand the goals and importance of clinical trials to reduce barriers and improve trial participation.

Barriers to accrual and enrollment in brain tumor trials

Many factors contribute to the poor survival of malignant brain tumor patients, some of which are not easily remedied. However, one contributor to the lack of progress that may be modifiable is poor clinical trial accrual. Surveys of brain tumor patients and neuro-oncology providers suggest that clinicians do a poor job of discussing clinical trials with patients and referring patients for clinical trials. Yet, data from the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society suggest that most eligible oncology patients asked to enroll on a clinical trial will agree to do so. To this end, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) in collaboration with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, including the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC), and other partners are working together with the intent to double clinical trial accrual over the next 5 years. Here we describe the factors contributing to poor clinical trial accrual in neuro-oncology and offer possible solutions.

You are how you recruit: a cohort and randomized controlled trial of recruitment strategies

Background

Recruitment is a challenge in developing population-representative pregnancy and birth cohorts.

Methods

We developed a collaborative recruitment infrastructure (CRI) to recruit pregnant women for 4 pregnancy cohorts using: faxes from obstetrical offices, in-clinic recruiters, university and funder-driven free-media events, paid-media, and attendance at relevant tradeshows. Recruitment rates and demographic differences were compared between recruitment methods.

Results

We received 5008 referrals over 40 months. Compared to fax, free-media referrals were 13 times more likely to be recruited (OR 13.0, 95% CI 4.2, 40.4: p < 0.001) and paid-media referrals were 4 times more likely to be recruited (OR 4.6, 95% CI 2.1, 10.3: p < 0.001). Among paid-media advertisements, free-to-read print (e.g. Metro) was the most effective (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.3, 4.5: p < 0.05). Several demographic differences were identified between recruitment methods and against a reference population. Between recruitment methods, media recruits had a similar proportion families with incomes ≥ $40,000 (paid-media: 94.4%; free-media: 93.3%) compared to fax recruits (95.7%), while in-clinic recruits were less likely to have family incomes ≥ $40,000 (88.8%, p < 0.05). Maternal recruits from fax and in-clinic were more likely to attend university (Fax: 92.6%, in-clinic 89.8%) versus the reference population (52.0%; p < 0.05 for both) and both were less likely to smoke (Fax: 6.8%, in-clinic 4.2%) versus reference (18.6%; p < 0.05 for both). However, while fax referrals were more likely to be Caucasian (85.9% versus reference 77.5%; p < 0.05), in-clinic referrals were not significantly different (78.2%; P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Recruitment methods result in different recruitment rates and participant demographics. A variety of methods are required to recruit a generalizable sample.

Factors influencing inclusion of patients with malignancies in clinical trials

Participation in clinical trials remains low and is a central issue in oncology. The authors identified, through a systematic review, 75 papers published up to August 2004 that report barriers to recruitment of patients in clinical trials. These barriers range from patient preference and concern about information/consent to clinical problems with protocols. Strategies to overcome barriers on the part of patients and clinicians are needed and should be carefully evaluated. Thirty-three (44%) papers reported factors related to patients as influencing the inclusion of patients, 28 (37%) reported clinician's related factors, and 37 (49%) other factors from either specific groups of patients (30 papers, 40%) and/or other scopes (13 papers, 17%). No differences in prevalence were found between papers dedicated to hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. Factors related to clinicians as influential were more frequently reported before 1995 (70%) than thereafter (25%; P = 0.0009). Reporting specific groups of patients as influential was more frequent in North American articles (50%) than in others (14%, P = 0.008). Patients' barriers included mostly patient preference (12 papers), concern about information and/or consent (11 papers), worry about uncertainty (7 papers), and/or relationship with medical team (7 papers). Concerning clinicians, incompatibility of protocol with normal practice (nine papers), problems in complying with the protocol (eight papers), and/or consent procedure (eight papers) were the most reported factors. The remaining factors mostly relied on specific groups of patients (30 papers), notably age of patients (18 papers) and/or minority population (11 papers, all from the USA). Strategies to overcome these barriers are needed and should be carefully evaluated.

Barriers to General Practitioner Participation in a Clinical Trial Initiated by Pharmacists

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to determine general practitioners' (GPs) reasons for not entering patients into a randomized trial that compared outpatient anticoagulation management by community pharmacists with that of physicians.

Methods:

An anonymous survey was mailed to all GPs who were invited to participate in the anticoagulation study ( n = 118).

Results:

Completed surveys were received from 78/110 (71%) of GPs who had declined to participate in the anticoagulation study. Of those who had consented to participate, 8/8 completed surveys were received. The top-ranked reasons for not entering patients were “pharmacist should accept legal liability” (40%), “concern about other health care professionals taking over physician responsibilities” (33%), and “concern about responsibility for my patients” (29%). Other frequently cited barriers included concern about pharmacists' ability to manage warfarin patients, general issues related to control over patient care decisions, and lack of time. The top-ranked reason for agreeing to participate was the belief that “research advances the profession” (87%). Shortly after this survey, a statement published by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC reinforced physicians' concern about legal liability and recommended that physicians avoid referring patients to community pharmacy—based anticoagulation programs.

Conclusion:

Pharmacists who plan to conduct research in the community setting should thoroughly investigate potential barriers to GP involvement in patient recruitment, because of the difficulty in anticipating the most crucial issues. Local physicians may not support pharmacy-based anticoagulation programs, whether or not they are implemented as part of a clinical trial.

The impact of the physician on the accrual to randomized clinical trials in patients with primary operable breast cancer

Randomized clinical trials (RCT) are the best way to define optimal treatment, but the accrual rates for hardly any trials have been reported. We analyzed retrospectively the participation of patients in eight phase III multicenter RTCs. Out of a total of 738 patients treated in a single institution for operable breast cancer over a 3-year period, 455 patients (62%) were eligible for at least one of the ongoing trials. Overall, 81% of the patients were informed and 47% of the eligible patients consented to participate. The accrual was 100% to a study with an aggressive combined modality treatment arm for patients with a poor prognosis. A low accrual rate was seen in two trials: 6% in the "elderly" trial comparing tamoxifen only with mastectomy and 10% to the "axilla" trial comparing surgery with radiotherapy to the axilla. The clinicians failed to inform most of these patients about the two trials. In the literature seven of the eight trials were reported; two of them (29%) failed to accrue enough patients.

Why Cancer Patients Enter Randomized Clinical Trials: Exploring the Factors That Influence Their Decision

Purpose

Few interventions have been designed and tested to improve recruitment to clinical trials in oncology. The multiple factors influencing patients' decisions have made the prioritization of specific interventions challenging. The present study was undertaken to identify the independent predictors of a cancer patient's decision to enter a randomized clinical trial.

Methods

A list of factors from the medical literature was augmented with a series of focus groups involving cancer patients, physicians, and clinical research associates (CRAs). A series of questionnaires was developed with items based on these factors and were administered concurrently to 189 cancer patients, their physicians, and CRAs following the patient's decision regarding trial entry. Forward logistic regression modeling was performed using the items significantly correlated (by univariate analysis) with the decision to enter a clinical trial.

Results

A number of items were significantly correlated with the patient's decision. In the multivariate logistic regression model, the patient's perception of personal benefit was the most important, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.08 (P < .05). CRA-related items involving supportive aspects of the decision-making process were also important. These included whether the CRA helped with the decision (OR = 1.71; P < .05), and whether the decision was hard for the patient to make (OR = 0.52; P < .05).

Conclusion

Strategies that better address the potential benefits of trial entry may result in improved accrual. Interventions or aids that focus on the supportive aspects of the decision-making process while respecting the need for information and patient autonomy may also lead to meaningful improvements in accrual.

The Tuskegee Legacy Project: history, preliminary scientific findings, and unanticipated societal benefits

This article is intended to provide a relatively complete picture of how a pilot study--conceived and initiated within an NIDCR-funded RRCMOH--matured into a solid line of investigation within that center and "with legs" into a fully funded study within the next generation of NIDCR centers on this topic of health disparities, the Centers for Research to Reduce Oral Health Disparities. It highlights the natural opportunity that these centers provide for multicenter. cross-disciplinary research and for research career pipelining for college and dental school students; with a focus, in this case, on minority students. Futhermore, this series of events demonstrates the rich potential that these types of research centers have to contribute in ways that far exceed the scientific outcomes that form their core. In this instance, the NMOHRC played a central--and critical, if unanticipated--role in contributing to two events of national significance, namely the presidential apology to the African American community for the research abuses of the USPHS--Tuskegee syphilis study and the establishment of the National Center for Bioethics in Research and Health Care at Tuskegee University. Research Centers supported by the NIH are fully intended to create a vortex of scientific activity that goes well beyond the direct scientific aims of the studies initially funded within those centers. The maxim is that the whole should be greater than the sum of its initial constituent studies or parts. We believe that NMOHRC did indeed achieve that maxim--even extending "the whole" to include broad societal impact. well beyond the scope of important, but mere, scientific outcomes--all within the concept and appropriate functions of a scientific NIH-funded research center.

Factors that influence the recruitment of patients to Phase III studies in oncology: the perspective of the clinical research associate

BACKGROUND

The multiple determinants of a patient's decision to enter into a clinical trial have been explored largely from the perspectives of patients and their physicians. Little research has involved clinical research associates (CRAs) formally, despite their central role in the process of recruitment. The current study was initiated to explore the factors that influence the decision of patients with cancer regarding clinical trial entry, specifically from the perspective of the CRA.

METHODS

Two focus groups of CRAs from the Hamilton Regional Cancer Center were organized. A skilled facilitator guided both groups through exploratory and subsequent confirmatory phases of discussions, which were audiotaped for review and coding using a process of consensus employing intercoder triangulation.

RESULTS

The two groups identified a number of factors that they believed influenced the recruitment process. Numerous physician and patient factors were reaffirmed, such as the impression of the scientific merit of a study or the sense of personal benefit, respectively. More uniquely, CRAs identified information transfer within the informed consent process as a major aspect of their specialized role. It was believed that full disclosure of information, in terms of both the content and the techniques and styles of delivery, was an important predictor of recruitment success. The groups quickly reached consensus on which factors they believed were the most important overall with respect to influencing study recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

CRAs appear to have a unique role in the process of recruiting patients to active clinical trials. They believe that they have an important influence on recruitment success. Further research to validate this impression is required, because, ultimately, a greater understanding of the relative roles of physician and patient factors and, potentially, CRA factors will be important in the development of ethical and supportive strategies to optimize the recruitment of patients with cancer into randomized clinical trials.

Clinical trial participation among patients enrolled in the Glioma Outcomes Project

BACKGROUND

Patient participation in well-designed and conducted clinical trials enables researchers to test new therapies. An understanding of the variables that possibly influence patient enrollment may help in patient recruitment for future trials. The authors evaluated factors that influenced patient enrollment in clinical trials using a prospective, large, multi-institutional registry of patients with malignant glioma.

METHODS

Data were examined from 708 patients who underwent first or second surgery for a malignant glioma who were enrolled in the Glioma Outcomes Project, which is a prospective observational data base that captures clinical practice patterns. The frequency of clinical trial participation and the variables that may have been associated with trial participation were evaluated. These variables included age, gender, race, household income, educational level, first versus second craniotomy, histology, and whether the patient was treated at an academic institution.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-one of 708 patients (21.3%) participated in a clinical trial, which was higher than the participation reported typically for patients with other types of primary malignancies. In univariate analysis, race, histology, and first craniotomy were significant between the two groups, with Caucasian patients and patients with glioblastoma histology showing higher participation rates. In a multivariate logistic regression model, significant predictors included young age and glioblastoma multiforme histology.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors present information on factors that may influence clinical trial participation among patients with malignant glioma and compare their data with information described previously on patients with other types of malignant disease. The percent of participation among the patients in the current study was greater than among patients with other primary tumor sites. Strategies should be implemented to improve recruitment to neuro-oncology trials, especially in elderly and minority populations.

Sociodemographic and clinical predictors of participation in two randomized trials: findings from the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study COMS report no. 7

Collecting sociodemographic and clinical data concerning patients who choose not to enroll in a randomized clinical trial can be useful in assessing the feasibility of attaining sample size goals during the course of a trial. It can also aid in addressing the extent of generalizability of trial findings after a trial has ended. The Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) consists of two multicenter randomized clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of radiotherapy in comparison to standard enucleation (removal of the affected eye) in prolonging survival of patients with choroidal melanoma. One trial is for patients with large tumors and the other trial is for patients with medium-sized tumors. The same baseline sociodemographic and clinical data were collected for both enrolled patients and eligible patients who did not enroll in the randomized trials during the first 3 years of patient recruitment. Partial information on nonrandomized patients was collected thereafter. Recruitment ended in the large tumor and medium tumor trials on December 31, 1994, and July 31, 1998, respectively. From November 1986 through July 1998, 6906 patients with choroidal melanoma were evaluated for the randomized trials, of whom 4191 (61%) were eligible for enrollment. Logistic regression methods were used to identify factors predictive of trial participation. Sociodemographic factors that appeared to be associated (p < 0.15) with participation in the univariable models in the medium tumor trial were age 60 years or older, less than college education, nonmanagerial occupation, current smoking, and residing in the same state as a COMS clinical center. In the large tumor trial, males, individuals who were not college-educated, and individuals residing in the same state as a COMS clinical center were more likely to enroll. In both trials, clinical determinants of participation were larger tumor dimensions and initial visual acuity worse than 20/20 in the study eye. In multivariable regression models, the variables that were significantly predictive of enrollment (p < 0.05) in at least one of the trials were older age, residence in the same state, larger tumor basal diameter, and worse initial visual acuity in the study eye. Knowledge of possible sociodemographic and clinical predictors of differentials in patient participation for nonenrolled patients may help to refine patient education and recruitment strategies for future trials. Patient enrollment in clinical trials may be increased by heightened physician awareness of such predictors, strategies for addressing these differences, and enhanced communication between physicians and patients.

Clinicians' attitudes to recruitment to randomised trials in cancer care: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore attitudes to and problems experienced with recruitment into randomised trials in cancer care.

METHODS

In-depth semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 20 hospital clinicians in the South West of England identified from 192 participants in a larger postal survey. Interviews were recorded on audiotape and fully transcribed. Data were analysed by comparing transcripts and describing emergent themes.

RESULTS

Clinicians do not always find it easy to identify key randomised trials in their area of interest. Even when they identify those trials in which they would like to participate, they are not always able to recruit patients. Although recruitment can be hindered by the time and administration involved and the resources needed, the attitudes of clinicians to research in general, the design of randomised trials, clinicians' concerns regarding individual patients and patients' preferences for different treatments also present major barriers. Other factors of concern include the imposition of strict eligibility criteria and the expense and complexity of monitoring and follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Barriers to recruitment depend on the clinicians' individual situations and on a complex combination of factors. Action is needed to promote awareness of randomised trials under way, to ensure that trials address issues of importance, are acceptable to patients and clinicians, and that practical support is provided for participating centres.

Patients' perceptions of physicians communication and outcomes of the accrual to trial process

The purpose of this study was to examine the relations among patients' perceptions of their physicians' communicative behavior during the informed consent interview, the patient's feeling of being confirmed by the physician and satisfied with care delivered by the physician, and the patient's decision to participate in a clinical trial or not. Respondents included 130 cancer patients who were eligible for a clinical trial and who had recently discussed trial participation with their physicians. Results indicated that a linear combination of the variables physician affiliative style, physician dominant or controlling style, patient satisfaction, patient confirmation, patient preference for decision making, patient desire for information, and patient age discriminate between patients who agree to participate in clinical trials and patients who refuse to participate. Physicians' affiliative communicative behaviors and patient satisfaction were clearly important to patients who agreed to participate. Motivations for patients who declined to participate in trials were less clear. Implications for physicians who offer clinical trials to their patients are that specific communication skills may enhance their patients' satisfaction and may help increase enrollment in clinical trials.

Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review

METHOD

A systematic review of three bibliographic databases from 1986 to 1996 identified 78 papers reporting barriers to recruitment of clinicians and patients to randomised controlled trials.

RESULTS

Clinician barriers included: time constraints, lack of staff and training, worry about the impact on the doctor-patient relationship, concern for patients, loss of professional autonomy, difficulty with the consent procedure, lack of rewards and recognition, and an insufficiently interesting question. Patient barriers included: additional demands of the trial, patient preferences, worry caused by uncertainty, and concerns about information and consent.

CONCLUSIONS

To overcome barriers to clinician recruitment, the trial should address an important research question and the protocol and data collection should be as straightforward as possible. The demands on clinicians and patients should be kept to a minimum. Dedicated research staff may be required to support clinical staff and patients. The recruitment aspects of a randomised controlled trial should be carefully planned and piloted. Further work is needed to quantify the extent of problems associated with clinician and patient participation, and proper evaluation is required of strategies to overcome barriers.

A study in contrasts: eligibility criteria in a twenty-year sample of NSABP and POG clinical trials. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Program. Pediatric Oncology Group

We studied changes in eligibility criteria--the largest impediment to patient accrual--in two samples of clinical trials. Trials from the NSABP (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Program) and POG (Pediatric Oncology Group) were analyzed. After eliminating duplications, the criteria in each protocol were enumerated and classified according to a novel schema. NSABP trials contained significantly more criteria than POG trials, and added precision criteria (making study populations homogeneous) at a faster rate than POG studies. The difference between NSABP studies (explanatory trials) and POG studies (pragmatic trials) suggest that large numbers of eligibility criteria are not necessary for quality studies. We recommend that: (1) the inclusion/exclusion criteria distinction be abandoned; (2) eligibility criteria be explicitly justified; (3) the need for each criterion be assessed when new trials are planned; (4) criteria in phase III trials restricting patient accrual be minimized; and (5) further research be done to assess the impact of criteria on generalizability.

Participation in the Ischemic Optic Neuropathy Decompression Trial: sex, race, and age

BACKGROUND

The Ischemic Optic Neuropathy Decompression Trial (IONDT) is a randomized, single masked, multicenter trial designed to assess the safety and efficacy of optic nerve decompression surgery compared with careful follow-up in patients 50 years or older with non-arteritic anterior ischemic neuropathy (NAION).

OBJECTIVES

To examine and evaluate the sex, race, and age distributions of the screened, and subsequently enrolled, IONDT population, especially the proportions of female, minority, and elderly patients, and demographic characteristics of clinical center investigators, the geographical location of IONDT Clinical Centers, and the referral patterns of local physicians.

SETTING

Twenty-five U.S. clinical centers.

PARTICIPANTS

There were 1,681 referrals to the Clinical Centers; an Eligibility Screening Form providing demographic information was completed for 1,152.

FINDINGS

Forty-three percent (495/1,152) of screened cases were women. Seven percent (85/1,152) were minorities: 33 African-Americans, 34 Hispanics, 17 Asians, and 1 Native-American. The average age was 66 +/- 10 years with a range of 22-92 years of age. Of the 1,152 referred patients, 305 were eligible for randomization; 258 (85%) of these agreed to participate in the trial. The demographic makeup of the randomized IONDT patients was similar to that of the screened population.

CONCLUSIONS

Women and the elderly are well represented in the IONDT. Because the number of participating minorities was low, we cannot reliably assess their level of participation. Both a low incidence of NAION in minorities and a low referral rate of minorities to clinical trials are plausible explanations for our findings.

Patient managed clinical trial

We describe a trial design of postmenopausal hormone therapy. Our goal was to design a trial that allows more patient management than usual, would include placebo effect in the therapy, would imitate the normal practices of health care as much as possible, and would be based on ordinary health services. We gave women a randomized recommendation to use or not use hormone therapy, invited them to two discussion groups, and sent them two questionnaires. They were asked to consult their own physician and to pay for the therapy themselves. The design worked well regarding recruitment, but compliance after 6 months was not satisfactory. The main problems were the women's aversion to randomization, the attitudes of the women's own physicians, and the difficulty in stopping the use of hormone therapy. The last-mentioned problem could be avoided by different inclusion criteria. Unless societal perception of research can be changed, most solutions to improve compliance would lead toward traditional trial designs.

Evaluating the benefits of a patient information video during the informed consent process

The study objective was to evaluate the effect of a patient information video during the informed consent process of a perinatal trial. Ninety women, between 19 and 33 weeks gestation, were randomised to receive written information about this perinatal trial and watch an information video or to receive written information only. Participants completed a questionnaire immediately after entry and 2-4 weeks later assessing knowledge of; feelings about the worth of; and willingness for future participation in the perinatal trial. When initially asked, more women who watched the video thought they would consent to the study (chi 2 = 6.3; df = 1; P = 0.01). No differences in knowledge about the perinatal trial were found initially, but 2-4 weeks later more knowledge had been retained by women who had watched the video (chi 2 = 6.7; df = 1; P = 0.01). These results suggest that a patient information video combined with an information sheet may result in greater participation in a research trial and may increase women's knowledge of a specific health problem and related research trial.

Informed consent in clinical trials

A review is provided in this paper on the empirical literature on informed consent from 1979 to 1995 referring to information disclosure and trial participation in clinical trials. Articles being reviewed focus upon information disclosure, reactions to disclosure and recall, features of consent and perceptions of informed consent, both in hypothetical and in real life situations. It is concluded that further research is needed to study the process of informed consent in clinical trials, to obtain a better insight into the myth and reality of informed consent in daily practice. Future studies should come forward on the limitations of previous empirical research on informed consent. Additional research should focus on the perspectives of patients who accept or decline trial participation.

Cancer patients' decision making and trial-entry preferences: the effects of "framing" information about short-term toxicity and long-term survival

The study purpose was to determine whether the framing of treatment information influenced patients' reported preferences for participating in treatment decision making and for trial entry. Ninety cancer patients read either neutrally-, positively-, or negatively-framed information about a chemotherapeutic treatment, then indicated their preferences for participating in the treatment decision, and whether they would participate in a clinical trial incorporating this protocol. There was no difference across information groups in preferences for participating in treatment decision making or willingness to enter such a clinical trial. Preference for participation in treatment decision making was significantly related to age (t = 2.54; p = 0.022), sex (x2 = 3.89; p = 0.05), and education (t = 2.54; p = 0.018); trial entry preferences were unrelated to these demographic variables. These results imply that, in this clinical context, attitudes towards participation in treatment decision making may be associated with characteristics of the patient, and attitudes towards trial entry may be dependent upon the clinical characteristics of a particular trial, but neither set of attitudes is influenced by the framing of protocol information.

Patients' willingness to enter clinical trials: measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation

Patients who agree and those who refuse clinical trial entry may differ in attitudes towards decision control and the benefits associated with the trial arms. These differences, if they exist, have implications for the process of obtaining informed consent and for the generalization of the results of a clinical trial. This paper describes the development and initial application of methods designed to detect such differences. Developmental work involved creating an inventory of instruments designed to determine patients' attitudes towards participating in treatment decision making, permitting random selection of treatment, and undertaking the risks and benefits associated with the various treatments in a trial. Initial application involved modifying these instruments in terms of an actual chemotherapeutic trial for colonic adenocarcinoma, seeking responses to these measures from 60 non-eligible colorectal cancer patients, then determining whether those who would agree to trial entry differed systematically on these measures from those who indicated that they would refuse such a trial. Twenty-five of the respondents reported that, if faced with the actual decision, they would agree to trial entry: 35 would refuse. Refusers demanded more participation in decision making (Chi-square; P = 0.01) and a greater increment in treatment benefit (t-test; P = 0.0001). Twenty-two of the 35 refusers reported aversion to randomization as their primary reason for trial refusal. Since their particular content can be modified, these measures may be applicable to all clinical trials. They could be used to study the reasons patients accept or refuse trial entry and to determine if agreer-refuser attitude differences undermine the generalizability of a trials results.

Accrual to cancer clinical trials: directions from the research literature

Although randomized clinical trials are the predominant method used to evaluate cancer therapies, only a small proportion of potential participants actually enter onto trials. This paper analyzes the research literature on accrual to cancer therapy trials. The research shows that nonparticipation is influenced by physician and patient variables, as well as by characteristics of the specific protocols. Trials design, especially pre-existing treatment preferences, pose significant problems for physicians and patients. Intervention strategies have focused on alternate trial designs, improving the informed consent process, and increasing knowledge about trials. Additional research should focus on the perspectives of patients who accept and decline trial participation and on interventions designed to affect accrual. Future studies need to be sensitive to patient quality of life considerations as well as practical and ethical issues.

Measuring Perceptions of the Exemplary Nurse

Qualitative and quantitative data identifying and weighting the perceived importance of different attributes of the "exemplary" nurse were collected from nursing respondents at different points in their professional development. Statistically significant differences in the attribute weights reported by fourth-year students and graduate nurses were observed. Because their pool was qualitatively different, quantitative comparisons with first-year students were not possible. The results indicate that these methods may be useful in examining the processes whereby the members of different groups (eg, nursing students and faculty) formulate and modify their assumptions about their own and others' professional values.

Measuring satisfaction with health care: a comparison of single with paired rating strategies

One of the central problems in studies of patient satisfaction with health care is the development of reliable and valid methods to determine the relative importance of different aspects of health care. Two techniques, paired comparisons and rating on a visual analogue scale, were compared in terms of their consistency with logical assumptions, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity. Thirty women with breast cancer were asked to assess brief hypothetical scenarios describing out-patient clinic visits to a tertiary cancer care centre. Each scenario incorporated three variables related to satisfaction with care: staff attitude, control over treatment decisions, and continuity of medical supervision. The paired choice method showed marginally better reliability and logical consistency than the rating method. Of the three variables assessed, continuity of medical supervision was consistently ranked highest in importance, and control over treatment decisions lowest. These preference assessment techniques appear to be suitable for use in the development of patient satisfaction indices, and for studies designed to examine variations in the priority given to different aspects of satisfaction with care.