"They should take time": Disclosure of clinical trial results as part of a social relationship

Chronicity and the patient's decision-making work. The case of an advanced cancer patient

This paper focuses on the particular situation of an advanced cancer patient whose condition has taken a chronic turn. We argue that chronicity of this kind sometimes falls at the frontier of Evidence Based Medicine because the uncertainty about the patient's condition can lead physicians to resort to clinical trials or non-licensed drugs to prevent the disease from progressing. This situation leaves plenty of scope for individual adjustments between patients and their doctors. Advanced cancer is regarded here not just as a biological event but as a chronic illness and a 'negotiated reality'. We argue that the chronicity of advanced cancer patients' situation broadens the patients' scope for 'work', and we have called this specific type of patient's work 'decision-making work'. This paper is based on a case study focusing on Patrick, a middle-aged Frenchman with metastatic lung cancer who underwent oncological treatment for seven years and was strongly determined to find new therapeutic options even if this meant having to go abroad. He actively orchestrated his therapeutic itinerary by reorganising his relationships with the medical world and coordinating the physicians' work. His particular social position enabled Patrick to bypass some of the current medical rules and to reorganise the usual pattern of distribution of medical responsibilities. The chronicity of his condition placed him at the very frontier of the health care system.

Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review

Background

There is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identify, collate, and describe the available evidence relating to any aspect of disseminating trial results to participants.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from January 2008 to August 2019) to identify studies that had explored any aspect of disseminating results to trial participants. The search strategy was based on that of a linked existing review. The evidence identified describes the characteristics of included studies using narrative description informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics.

Results

Thirty-three eligible studies, including 12,700 participants (which included patients, health care professionals, trial teams), were identified and included. Reporting of participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) across the studies was poor. The majority of studies investigated dissemination of aggregate trial results. The most frequently reported mode of disseminating of results was postal. Overall, the results report that participants evaluated receipt of trial results positively, with reported benefits including improved communication, demonstration of appreciation, improved retention, and engagement in future research. However, there were also some concerns about how well the dissemination was resourced and done, worries about emotional effects on participants especially when reporting unfavourable results, and frustration about the delay between the end of the trial and receipt of results.

Conclusions

This scoping review has highlighted that few high-quality evaluative studies have been conducted that can provide evidence on the best ways to deliver results to trial participants. There have been relatively few qualitative studies that explore perspectives from diverse populations, and those that have been conducted are limited to a handful of clinical areas. The learning from these studies can be used as a platform for further research and to consider some core guiding principles of the opportunities and challenges when disseminating trial results to those who participated.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05300-x.

"The results are encouragements to make positive changes to be healthier:" qualitative evaluation of Marshallese participants' perceptions when receiving study results in a randomized control trial

Background

Study participants express a desire to receive the results of studies in which they have participated even when the results are not what researchers expected. Sharing results with participants is a core principle of community-based participatory research (CBPR), however, many researchers using a community-based participatory approach report that they encounter barriers to sharing results with study participants. Researchers at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences established a CBPR partnership with Marshallese community stakeholders in an effort to reduce the health disparities of this vulnerable population. Marshallese are a Pacific Islander population that faces significant health disparities and have a high prevalence of diabetes, obesity, obesity-related cancers, and other chronic diseases compared to the general US population.

Methods

A qualitative descriptive design was used to evaluate Marshallese participants' perceptions related to receiving results of a culturally adapted Diabetes Self-Management Education randomized control trial in which they participated. Participants were provided with a summary of their individual results as well as preliminary, overall aggregate study results. Interviews were conducted with half of (N = 111) of the 221 enrolled participants that provided them with the opportunity to share in-depth responses related to their perceptions of the study results they received.

Results

There was no statistically significant differences between study arms in participant desire to receive overall study results, desire to receive personal study results, or willingness to participate in future research. Participants described their desire for results and the effect of these results on their future behavior. Within the a priori theme of participants' desire for results, three subthemes emerged: 1) results showed current health status, 2) results showed improvement, and 3) demonstrated the overall results of the study. Within the a priori theme of effects of results on future behavior, two sub-themes emerged: 1) encourage future healthy behavior, and 2) encourage future research participation.

Conclusions

Participants overwhelmingly stated they wanted to receive personal and aggregate study results. This finding is consistent with previous qualitative studies that documented that participants want results. Marshallese participants also reported that receiving study results would affect their future health behavior. This study documents specifically how participants anticipate using the results of studies in which they participated.

Clinical trials registration information

The study is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02407132).

The sociology of cancer: a decade of research

Biomedicine is often presented as the driving force behind improvements in cancer care, with genomics the latest innovation poised to change the meaning, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and lived experience of cancer. Reviewing sociological analyses of a diversity of patient and practitioner experiences and accounts of cancer during the last decade (2007-17), we explore the experiences of, approaches to and understandings of cancer in this period. We identify three key areas of focus: (i) cancer patient experiences and identities; (ii) cancer risk and responsibilities and (iii) bioclinical collectives. We explore these sociological studies of societal and biomedical developments and how sociologists have sought to influence developments in cancer identities, care and research. We end by suggesting that we extend our understanding of innovations in the fields of cancer research to take better account of these wider social and cultural innovations, together with patients, activists' and sociologists' contributions therein.

"Maybe they have found something new" participants' views on returning cohort psychosocial survey results

BACKGROUND

Although greater attention is currently being paid to participants in research, no studies have dealt so far with the issue of returning aggregate psychosocial results to cohort participants.

OBJECTIVE

(i) To explore participants' views about disclosure of the aggregate results of a French national psychosocial cohort survey on the epidemiology of preventive behaviour in women from families with a hereditary breast cancer risk. (ii) To assess whether it is worth consulting participants before designing the disclosure process.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semi-structured face-to-face interviews and a thematic analysis based on Grounded Theory methods.

PARTICIPANTS

Nineteen interviews were conducted with cancer-free female BRCA mutation carriers/non-carriers aged 31-79 who had participated in a cohort survey by answering self-administered questionnaires.

RESULTS

Participants showed considerable interest in the issue of result disclosure. The preferences expressed about disclosure were rarely relevant to the topic investigated, however, as they often focused on medical knowledge about BRCA and not on the psychosocial findings obtained. This confusion may have been due to the participants' experience of the survey procedures, including its longitudinal nature, the occurrence of very few interactions with the investigators and the wide range of topics addressed in the questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

Investigators should ascertain participants' expectations and preferences by consulting them before disclosing the results obtained. Although the disclosure process may not meet participants' expectations completely, consultation is the key to preventing them from having irrealistic expectations about the information they are going to receive.

Disclosure of research results: a randomized study on GENEPSO-PS cohort participants

BACKGROUND

There exist no recommendations as to how aggregate research results should best be disclosed to long-term cohort participants.

OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of cohort results disclosure documents of various kinds on participants' satisfaction.

DESIGN

Randomized study with a 2x2 factorial design.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The GENEPSO-PS cohort is used to study the psychosocial characteristics and preventive behaviour of both BRCA1/2 carriers and non-carriers; 235 participants wishing to receive 'information about the survey results' answered a self-administered questionnaire.

INTERVENTIONS

The impact of providing the following items in addition to a leaflet about aggregate psychosocial research results was investigated (i) an up-to-date medical information sheet about BRCA1/2 genetic topics, (ii) a photograph with the names of the researchers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Satisfaction profiles drawn up using cluster analysis methods.

RESULTS

Providing additional medical and/or research team information had no significant effect on satisfaction. The patients attributed to the 'poorly satisfied' group (n = 60, 25.5%) differed significantly from those in the 'highly satisfied' group (n = 51, 21.7%): they were younger [odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (0.92-0.99), P = 0.028], less often had a daughter [OR = 4.87 (1.80-13.20), P = 0.002], had reached a higher educational level [OR = 2.94 (1.24-6.95), P = 0.014] and more frequently carried a BRCA1/2 mutation [OR = 2.73 (1.20-6.23), P = 0.017].

CONCLUSIONS

This original approach to disclosing research results to cohort participants was welcomed by most of the participants, but less by the more educated and by BRCA1/2 carriers. Although an easily understandable document is necessary, it might also be worth providing some participants with more in-depth information.

Consent revisited: the impact of return of results on participants' views and expectations about trial participation

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, the sharing of study results with participants is advocated as an element of good research practice. Yet little is known about how receiving the results of trials may impact on participants' perceptions of their original decision to consent.

OBJECTIVE

We explored participants' views of their decision to consent to a clinical trial after they received results showing adverse outcomes in some arms of the trial.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 38 women in the UK who participated in a trial of antibiotics in pregnancy. All had received results from a follow-up study that reported increased risk of adverse outcomes for children of participants in some of the trial intervention arms. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

Participants' original decisions to consent to the trial had been based on hope of personal benefit and assumptions of safety. On receiving the results, most made sense of their experience in ways that enabled them to remain content with their decision to take part. But for some, the results provoked recognition that their original expectations might have been mistaken or that they had not understood the implications of their decision to participate. These participants experienced guilt, a sense of betrayal by the maternity staff and researchers involved in the trial, and damage to trust.

CONCLUSIONS

Sharing of study results is not a wholly benign practice, and requires careful development of suitable approaches for further evaluation before widespread adoption.

Expectation of volunteers towards the vaccine efficacy of the prime-boost HIV vaccine phase III trial during unblinding

A Phase III community-based HIV vaccine trial using the ALVAC-HIV and AIDSVAX B/E prime-boost regimen (RV144) showed a modest vaccine efficacy of 31.2% against HIV acquisition. Participant's understanding of the trial is a key element of its success. This study aimed to understand participant's expectation and response to the overall results of the trial as well after unblinding. Using an open-ended questionnaire, data were collected from 400 participants who came for the unblinding visit. Fifty-three percent received the vaccine and 47% were placebo recipients. The median age was 30 years (range: 22-37). The observed vaccine efficacy of 31.2% was lower than expected by 67.75% of participants compared to higher than expected (by 6%), as expected (by 11.25%), and those with no expectation (15%). A majority of participants (71.5%) were happy and proud, and indicated that it was a good result. The rest were sad or disappointed (22.75%) or acquiescent (5.75%). After unblinding, 67.92% of the vaccine recipients had a positive response and 32.08% were acquiescent. Among placebo recipients, 85.11% were acquiescent and 10.11% indicated that being assigned to the vaccine group would have been better even though vaccine efficacy was only 31.2%. Despite the modest vaccine efficacy, a majority of study participants acknowledged the value of the trial and hoped that information from RV144 could be used for future vaccine development.

Disclosure of individual pharmacogenomic results in research projects: when and what kind of information to return to research participants

In the growing field of genomics, the utility of returning certain research results to participants has become a highly debated issue. Existing guidelines are not explicit as to the kind of genomic information that should be returned to research participants. Moreover, very few current recommendations and articles in the literature address the return of pharmacogenomic results. Although genetics and pharmacogenomics have many similarities, the circumstances in which disclosure could have a benefit for the participants are different. This review aims to describe the conditions in which disclosure of pharmacogenomic results is appropriate.

Stakeholder views on returning research results

While the disclosure of research findings is relevant to all types of biomedical research, it has garnered particular attention with respect to genetics and genomics research due to some of the unique aspects of the data and the high public profile of the field. In this chapter, we review the attitudes of stakeholders (research participants, policymakers, and researchers) to define areas of consensus regarding the issue of returning research results across and within groups. In addition to stakeholder attitudes about obligations and interest in research results, other major related issues related to returning research results, such as informed consent, communication of research results, and cost, are discussed. Given the consensus between stakeholders to return summary reports of a study's outcomes and individual research results of clinical significance, we conclude that the time has come to encourage, if not require, researchers to consider these issues in the developmental planning stages of a project and to plan and budget accordingly.