Using the Internet to search for cancer clinical trials: a comparative audit of clinical trial search tools

Facilitating increased participation in clinical trials: what do consumers expect of clinical trial matching websites?

Clinical trials offer access to novel therapies and potential major benefits for patients, but identifying and accessing suitable trials remains a significant challenge for consumers. A burgeoning range of online services aims to meet this need; however, there is a paucity of data on whether these services are addressing the requirements and concerns of consumers. Here, we report our findings from a survey of cancer consumers, with results we believe are relevant to the broader research community.

“Send My Information”: Increasing Public Accessibility to Clinical Trials by Facilitating Participant Expression of Interest

Introduction:

The process of identifying and connecting with clinical trial study teams can be challenging and difficult for members of the public. The national volunteer community registry, ResearchMatch, and the public clinical trials search tool, Trials Today, work in tandem to bridge this connection by providing a streamlined process for potential participants to identify clinical trials which may be of interest.

Methods:

Building on the existing infrastructure of ResearchMatch and Trials Today, we created a mechanism by which the public can request that their basic contact information (e.g., email/phone) be securely shared with any actively recruiting clinical trial, including trials with no existing relationship with ResearchMatch.

Results:

Within the first 2 years of use (July 2019–July 2021), ResearchMatch Volunteers sent 12,251 requests to study teams. On average, 20% of these requests were accepted by the study teams.

Conclusions:

The utilization of this tool indicates that there is active interest among members of the public to independently contact study teams about trials of interest. Additionally, research teams unaffiliated with ResearchMatch are willing to at minimum accept contact information. This allows ResearchMatch to successfully serve as a medium, connecting members of the public with actively recruiting trials.

Accelerating Cancer Patient Recruitment Through a Mobile Application (Clinical Trial Finder)

OBJECTIVE

Participant recruitment is a challenge for any clinical trial but is especially complex in cancer specifically due to the need to initiate treatment urgently. Most participants enrolled in oncology clinical trials are identified as potential participants by the oncologist or other referring provider. Optimal clinical care for patients with cancer includes consideration of participation in a clinical trial. However, the process of finding a clinical trial that is appropriate the patient can be cumbersome and time consuming.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The University of Kansas Cancer Center has developed a mobile application (app) which streamlines the clinical trial search process for physicians, patients, and caregivers by cohesively integrating all clinical trials currently recruiting in the center and making them easy to browse.

RESULTS

Key aspects of the app include simple filtering options, the ability to search for trials by name, easily accessible assistance, and in-app referral by phone or email. Initial feedback on the app has been very positive, with several suggestions already being implemented in future development. The app was designed to be used both by physicians to find trials, as well as patients in collaboration with their physicians.

CONCLUSION

While long-term results will be crucial to understanding how the app can best serve our patient population, our initial results suggest that health system specific clinical trial apps can address a currently unmet need in the clinical trial recruitment process.

Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Participation: Outcomes of a National Clinical Trial Matching and Navigation Service for Patients With a Blood Cancer

PURPOSE

There are numerous barriers to cancer clinical trial participation in the United States. This paper describes the approach and outcomes of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's Clinical Trial Support Center (CTSC), whose nurse navigators assist patients with a blood cancer and their oncologists by identifying all appropriate trials based on clinical data and patient preference, facilitating informed and shared decision making, and minimizing enrollment barriers.

METHODS

Data on patients served from October 2017 to October 2019 were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate analyses to determine demographic and clinical characteristics associated with enrollment. Reasons for nonenrollment were examined.

RESULTS

The CTSC opened 906 patient cases during this time frame. Among all US patients with a closed case (n = 750), the clinical trial enrollment rate was 16.1%. Among those with a known enrollment outcome after a trial search (n = 537), the enrollment rate was 22.5%. Multivariate analysis controlling for variables significant in bivariate analyses (insurance, treatment status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and urban or rural residence) revealed that patients with Medicaid were less likely to enroll than those with private or commercial insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 0.054; CI, 0.003 to 0.899), and patients in treatment or maintenance were less likely to enroll than those relapsed or refractory to most recent therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.312; CI, 0.139 to 0.702). Primary reasons for nonenrollment were preference for standard of care (66.3%) and patient passed away (16.1%).

CONCLUSION

The CTSC is an effective, replicable model for addressing multilevel barriers to clinical trial participation. The findings highlight the need to increase opportunities for trial participation sooner after diagnosis and among patients with Medicaid.

Quality of online information about phase I clinical cancer trials in Sweden, Denmark and Norway

Patients increasingly search for online information about clinical trials. Little is known about the quality and readability of the information in these databases. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the quality and readability of online information available to the public on phase I clinical cancer trials in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. A qualitative content analysis was made of 19 online trial descriptions from three public websites in Sweden, Denmark and Norway, and the readability of the documents was tested. Both the quality of the content and the readability scores were best for the Danish information. The Swedish texts were very short and were the least readable. Overall, the quality of the information was highly variable and nearly all the documents were misleading in part. Furthermore, the descriptions provided almost no information about possible adverse effects or disadvantages of study participation. This study highlights a communication problem and proposes new ways of presenting studies that are less suggestive of positive outcomes, arguing that we should be more careful to include information about adverse effects, and that the use of simple measures like readability testing can be useful as an indicator of text quality.

YouTube Videos as a Source of Information About Clinical Trials: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are essential to the advancement of cancer treatment but fewer than 5% of adult cancer patients enroll in a trial. A commonly cited barrier to participation is the lack of understanding about clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

Since the internet is a popular source of health-related information and YouTube is the second most visited website in the world, we examined the content of the top 115 YouTube videos about clinical trials to evaluate clinical trial information available through this medium.

METHODS

YouTube videos posted prior to March 2017 were searched using selected keywords. A snowballing technique was used to identify videos wherein sequential screening of the autofill search results for each set of keywords was conducted. Video characteristics (eg, number of views and video length) were recorded. The content was broadly grouped as related to purpose, phases, design, safety and ethics, and participant considerations. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations between video type (cancer vs noncancer) and video characteristics and content.

RESULTS

In total, 115 videos were reviewed. Of these, 46/115 (40.0%) were cancer clinical trials videos and 69/115 (60.0%) were noncancer/general clinical trial videos. Most videos were created by health care organizations/cancer centers (34/115, 29.6%), were oriented toward patients (67/115, 58.3%) and the general public (68/115, 59.1%), and were informational (79/115, 68.7%); altruism was a common theme (31/115, 27.0%). Compared with noncancer videos, cancer clinical trials videos more frequently used an affective communication style and mentioned the benefits of participation. Cancer clinical trial videos were also much more likely to raise the issue of costs associated with participation (odds ratio [OR] 5.93, 95% CI 1.15-29.46) and advise patients to communicate with their physician about cancer clinical trials (OR 4.94, 95% CI 1.39-17.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, YouTube clinical trial videos provided information on many aspects of trials; however, individual videos tended to focus on selected topics with varying levels of detail. Cancer clinical trial videos were more emotional in style and positive in tone and provided information on the important topics of cost and communication. Patients are encouraged to verify and supplement YouTube video information in consultations with their health care professionals to obtain a full and accurate picture of cancer clinical trials to make an adequately informed decision about participation.

Evaluating the Use of Plain Language in a Cancer Clinical Trial Website/App

Medically complex titles and descriptions found on clinical trial websites and online applications present a barrier to comprehension for users from the general public. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of plain language trial descriptions for user comprehension of basic trial details. Two hundred seventeen volunteers recruited from patient waiting areas completed 441 user tests of ten plain language trial descriptions. The majority of volunteers adequately comprehended the cancer type and basic inclusion/exclusion criteria from plain language trial descriptions. Difficulty comprehending the treatment being studied was seen in seven of ten descriptions tested. Revision and retesting of the seven trial descriptions showed continued user challenges in comprehending the treatment being studied. Plain language clinical trial descriptions integrated into a website/app allowed users to understand basic inclusion/exclusion criteria. Despite plain language used, discerning the treatment being studied may be difficult for some users. Integration of plain language descriptions into clinical trial online applications can help users understand trial basics. Further research regarding effective use of plain language to communicate the treatment being studied is needed.

Improving Access to Online Health Information With Conversational Agents: A Randomized Controlled Experiment

BACKGROUND

Conventional Web-based search engines may be unusable by individuals with low health literacy for finding health-related information, thus precluding their use by this population.

OBJECTIVE

We describe a conversational search engine interface designed to allow individuals with low health and computer literacy identify and learn about clinical trials on the Internet.

METHODS

A randomized trial involving 89 participants compared the conversational search engine interface (n=43) to the existing conventional keyword- and facet-based search engine interface (n=46) for the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials database. Each participant performed 2 tasks: finding a clinical trial for themselves and finding a trial that met prespecified criteria.

RESULTS

Results indicated that all participants were more satisfied with the conversational interface based on 7-point self-reported satisfaction ratings (task 1: mean 4.9, SD 1.8 vs mean 3.2, SD 1.8, P<.001; task 2: mean 4.8, SD 1.9 vs mean 3.2, SD 1.7, P<.001) compared to the conventional Web form-based interface. All participants also rated the trials they found as better meeting their search criteria, based on 7-point self-reported scales (task 1: mean 3.7, SD 1.6 vs mean 2.7, SD 1.8, P=.01; task 2: mean 4.8, SD 1.7 vs mean 3.4, SD 1.9, P<.01). Participants with low health literacy failed to find any trials that satisfied the prespecified criteria for task 2 using the conventional search engine interface, whereas 36% (5/14) were successful at this task using the conversational interface (P=.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Conversational agents can be used to improve accessibility to Web-based searches in general and clinical trials in particular, and can help decrease recruitment bias against disadvantaged populations.

ClinicalTrials.gov as a data source for semi-automated point-of-care trial eligibility screening

Background

Implementing semi-automated processes to efficiently match patients to clinical trials at the point of care requires both detailed patient data and authoritative information about open studies.

Objective

To evaluate the utility of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry as a data source for semi-automated trial eligibility screening.

Methods

Eligibility criteria and metadata for 437 trials open for recruitment in four different clinical domains were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials were evaluated for up to date recruitment status and eligibility criteria were evaluated for obstacles to automated interpretation. Finally, phone or email outreach to coordinators at a subset of the trials was made to assess the accuracy of contact details and recruitment status.

Results

24% (104 of 437) of trials declaring on open recruitment status list a study completion date in the past, indicating out of date records. Substantial barriers to automated eligibility interpretation in free form text are present in 81% to up to 94% of all trials. We were unable to contact coordinators at 31% (45 of 146) of the trials in the subset, either by phone or by email. Only 53% (74 of 146) would confirm that they were still recruiting patients.

Conclusion

Because ClinicalTrials.gov has entries on most US and many international trials, the registry could be repurposed as a comprehensive trial matching data source. Semi-automated point of care recruitment would be facilitated by matching the registry's eligibility criteria against clinical data from electronic health records. But the current entries fall short. Ultimately, improved techniques in natural language processing will facilitate semi-automated complex matching. As immediate next steps, we recommend augmenting ClinicalTrials.gov data entry forms to capture key eligibility criteria in a simple, structured format.

Cross-system evaluation of clinical trial search engines

Clinical trials are fundamental to the advancement of medicine but constantly face recruitment difficulties. Various clinical trial search engines have been designed to help health consumers identify trials for which they may be eligible. Unfortunately, knowledge of the usefulness and usability of their designs remains scarce. In this study, we used mixed methods, including time-motion analysis, think-aloud protocol, and survey, to evaluate five popular clinical trial search engines with 11 users. Differences in user preferences and time spent on each system were observed and correlated with user characteristics. In general, searching for applicable trials using these systems is a cognitively demanding task. Our results show that user perceptions of these systems are multifactorial. The survey indicated eTACTS being the generally preferred system, but this finding did not persist among all mixed methods. This study confirms the value of mixed-methods for a comprehensive system evaluation. Future system designers must be aware that different users groups expect different functionalities.

Health literacy and usability of clinical trial search engines

Several web-based search engines have been developed to assist individuals to find clinical trials for which they may be interested in volunteering. However, these search engines may be difficult for individuals with low health and computer literacy to navigate. The authors present findings from a usability evaluation of clinical trial search tools with 41 participants across the health and computer literacy spectrum. The study consisted of 3 parts: (a) a usability study of an existing web-based clinical trial search tool; (b) a usability study of a keyword-based clinical trial search tool; and (c) an exploratory study investigating users' information needs when deciding among 2 or more candidate clinical trials. From the first 2 studies, the authors found that users with low health literacy have difficulty forming queries using keywords and have significantly more difficulty using a standard web-based clinical trial search tool compared with users with adequate health literacy. From the third study, the authors identified the search factors most important to individuals searching for clinical trials and how these varied by health literacy level.

eTACTS: a method for dynamically filtering clinical trial search results

OBJECTIVE

Information overload is a significant problem facing online clinical trial searchers. We present eTACTS, a novel interactive retrieval framework using common eligibility tags to dynamically filter clinical trial search results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

eTACTS mines frequent eligibility tags from free-text clinical trial eligibility criteria and uses these tags for trial indexing. After an initial search, eTACTS presents to the user a tag cloud representing the current results. When the user selects a tag, eTACTS retains only those trials containing that tag in their eligibility criteria and generates a new cloud based on tag frequency and co-occurrences in the remaining trials. The user can then select a new tag or unselect a previous tag. The process iterates until a manageable number of trials is returned. We evaluated eTACTS in terms of filtering efficiency, diversity of the search results, and user eligibility to the filtered trials using both qualitative and quantitative methods.

RESULTS

eTACTS (1) rapidly reduced search results from over a thousand trials to ten; (2) highlighted trials that are generally not top-ranked by conventional search engines; and (3) retrieved a greater number of suitable trials than existing search engines.

DISCUSSION

eTACTS enables intuitive clinical trial searches by indexing eligibility criteria with effective tags. User evaluation was limited to one case study and a small group of evaluators due to the long duration of the experiment. Although a larger-scale evaluation could be conducted, this feasibility study demonstrated significant advantages of eTACTS over existing clinical trial search engines.

CONCLUSION

A dynamic eligibility tag cloud can potentially enhance state-of-the-art clinical trial search engines by allowing intuitive and efficient filtering of the search result space.

Adoption, acceptability, and accuracy of an online clinical trial matching website for breast cancer

Background

Less than 5% of breast cancer patients participate in clinical trials. To increase patients’ awareness and access to trials, we created BreastCancerTrials.org, a clinical trial matching website. BreastCancerTrials.org matched patients to trials based on their self-reported breast cancer history. It also provided a messaging platform through which patients could self-refer themselves to participating research sites.

Objective

To assess adoption by research sites, acceptability to patients, and patients’ accuracy in providing information to BreastCancerTrials.org.

Methods

We approached 13 research sites in Northern California to list their trials on BreastCancerTrials.org. For adoption, we examined the willingness of contacted research sites to collaborate with BreastCancerTrials.org. For acceptability, we analyzed usage statistics of visitors who completed the BreastCancerTrials.org health history questionnaire in the first 14 months after launch and surveyed users who visited the website during its first year about their experience. For accuracy, we compared the self-reported health history of 20 patients against their medical records. The health history questionnaire was divided into four sections: About Me, personal information including date of birth and sex; My Health as of Today, current status including cancer stage, menopausal status, and sites with evidence of disease; My Cancer, diagnostic information such as hormone and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status; and My Treatment, an itemized record of past treatment including responses to therapy.

Results

A total of 12 sites contributed 55 trials. Regarding acceptability, 733 visitors registered on the website; 428 reported their health history; and 407 matched to at least one trial. Of 375 patients who were sent a survey, 75 responded (20%); 23 of the 75 (31%) contacted a research site, 12 of the 23 (52%) were eligible for a trial, and 5 of the 12 (42%) reported enrolling. As for accuracy, 20 clinic visitors reported 1456 health history items, 1324 of which matched their clinic record (90.93%).

Conclusions

BreastCancerTrials.org was adopted by research sites. Patients found it acceptable and were able to provide accurate information for trial matching. Based on our findings, we launched an upgraded version of BreastCancerTrials.org as a national service in October 2008.

Outcomes of a cancer clinical trial matching service

The American Cancer Society (ACS) and Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups (CCCG) provide a clinical trial (CT) information/matching/eligibility service (Clinical Trials Matching Service [CTMS]). Patients' demographic and clinical data, enrollment status, and self-reported barriers to CT participation were analyzed to assess enrollment rates and determinants of enrollment. During 3 years beginning October 1, 2007, the CTMS served 6,903 patients via the ACS call center. Among the 1,987 patients with follow-up information on enrollment, 219 (11.0%) enrolled in a CT; 48 of these 219 enrollees chose a CT they found via the CTMS. Patients were less likely to enroll if they had poor ECOG performance status (P = 0.032); were African American (P = 0.0003), were uninsured or had Medicaid coverage (P = 0.024), or had lower stage disease (P = 0.018). Enrollment varied by trial type/cancer site/system (P = .026). Several barriers significantly predicted nonenrollment. Broader availability of a CTMS might help improve patient participation in cancer clinical trials.

ResearchMatch: a national registry to recruit volunteers for clinical research

The authors designed ResearchMatch, a disease-neutral, Web-based recruitment registry to help match individuals who wish to participate in clinical research studies with researchers actively searching for volunteers throughout the United States. In this article, they describe ResearchMatch's stakeholders, workflow model, technical infrastructure, and, for the registry's first 19 months of operation, utilization metrics. Having launched volunteer registration tools in November 2009 and researcher registration tools in March 2010, ResearchMatch had, as of June 2011, registered 15,871 volunteer participants from all 50 states. The registry was created as a collaborative project for institutions in the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium. Also as of June 2011, a total of 751 researchers from 61 participating CTSA institutions had registered to use the tool to recruit participants into 540 active studies and trials. ResearchMatch has proven successful in connecting volunteers with researchers, and the authors are currently evaluating regulatory and workflow options to open access to researchers at non-CTSA institutions.

Assessing the impact of user-centered research on a clinical trial eHealth tool via counterbalanced research design

OBJECTIVE

Informatics applications have the potential to improve participation in clinical trials, but their design must be based on user-centered research. This research used a fully counterbalanced experimental design to investigate the effect of changes made to the original version of a website, http://BreastCancerTrials.org/, and confirm that the revised version addressed and reinforced patients' needs and expectations.

DESIGN

Participants included women who had received a breast cancer diagnosis within the last 5 years (N=77). They were randomized into two groups: one group used and reviewed the original version first followed by the redesigned version, and the other group used and reviewed them in reverse order.

MEASUREMENTS

The study used both quantitative and qualitative measures. During use, participants' click paths and general reactions were observed. After use, participants were asked to answer survey items and open-ended questions to indicate their reactions and which version they preferred and met their needs and expectations better.

RESULTS

Overall, the revised version of the site was preferred and perceived to be clearer, easier to navigate, more trustworthy and credible, and more private and safe overall. However, users who viewed the original version last had similar attitudes toward both versions.

CONCLUSION

By applying research findings to the redesign of a website for clinical trial searching, it was possible to re-engineer the interface to better support patients' decisions to participate in clinical trials. The mechanisms of action in this case appeared to revolve around creating an environment that supported a sense of personal control and decisional autonomy.

What do patients search for when seeking clinical trial information online?

The Internet has become a common source for consumers to seek health information across a wide range of topics including searching for clinical trials. However, not much is known about what consumers search for in relation to clinical trials and how they formulate their search queries. In this study, we use log file data from TrialX.com, a consumer-centric website that provides clinical trial information to ascertain patterns in consumer queries. We analyzed semantic patterns in the queries by mapping query keywords to the UMLS Semantic Types and performed a manual evaluation of user paths. We found that the queries can be grouped into combinations of information needs related to condition, location and treatment. The results also suggested that the consumers using longer search queries with multiple Semantic Types are more likely to take action to participate in clinical trials. The study provides early insights that can be used to inform changes in website content and information display to improve clinical trials information seeking.

Patient internet use surrounding cancer clinical trials: clinician perceptions and responses

Clinician perceptions of patient internet use related to clinical trials are not well documented. This exploratory study surveyed how cancer care providers at one NCI-designated cancer center viewed patient internet use surrounding cancer trials, including whether it affected patient decision making regarding trial enrollment. The sample included 20 oncologists (59%) and 14 (41%) nurses (n=34). Most clinicians (n=26; 76%) perceived the internet as having an effect on whether or not patients decided to enroll in a cancer trial. Two thirds (n=17; 65%) felt that this effect was positive, including in terms of enhancing patient knowledge of, access to, and enrollment in trials. Clinicians were asked if they ever discussed with their patients the topic of going online to find out more about cancer trials. Over half (n=18; 58%) who responded (n=31) to this item said yes; the rest (n=13; 42%) said no. The majority (n=10; 77%) in the "no" category were among those who reported that the internet had an effect on patient decision making. These data provisionally suggest that clinicians may see the internet as having mostly a positive effect on patient decision making about cancer trials, but that their communication efforts with patients do not always logically follow from this perception. Provider-patient discussion about internet use may be an opportunity for clinicians to contribute to improved patient knowledge of and enrollment in cancer trials. More research is needed to confirm and explain the gap between clinician perception and communication regarding trial-related internet use by cancer patients.

An analysis of sexual health information on radical prostatectomy websites

OBJECTIVE

To define the nature of information posted on websites related to radical prostatectomy (RP), specifically its accuracy and comprehensiveness, as RP is associated with erectile dysfunction (ED).

METHODS

We reviewed 70 robotic RP (RARP) and 20 open RP (ORP) medical centres. Their websites were reviewed for various factors, by two separate reviewers whose reviews were not seen by each other. Websites were graded based on accuracy and comprehensiveness of information by the senior investigator.

RESULTS

Of the academic and community-based RARP centres, 55% and 79% had specific websites (P < 0.05); 45% of RARP sites had generic information copied directly from the website of Intuitive Surgical (Sunnyvale, CA, USA; the manufacturer of the robotic system). ED was mentioned by only 54% of RARP sites and 45% of ORP sites; 17% of RARP sites were deemed accurate, compared with 30% of ORP sites (P < 0.05). Just over 1% of RARP sites were considered comprehensive, vs 10% of ORP sites (P < 0.05). A third of RARP sites had a direct link to the Intuitive Surgical website (16% academic vs 53% community, P < 0.05), compared to 10% of open sites (P < 0.05). Of most interest was that half of the RARP sites suggested that ED rates were lower for RARP than for ORP; this compared to ED rates being cited as lower for ORP on 5% of the ORP sites (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the stature of RP as a treatment option for men with prostate cancer, and the recent increase in the use of RARP, the accuracy of information pertaining to sexual health on RP websites is poor, with many making false statements about the long-term outcomes for erectile function. This inadequacy appears to be greater on RARP than on ORP websites.