Why do breast cancer patients decline entry into randomised trials and how do they feel about their decision later: a prospective, longitudinal, in-depth interview study

The emotional side of taking part in a cancer clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Taking part in a cancer clinical trial often represents a source of psychological distress and emotional activation among patients and their caregivers. Nowadays, social media platforms provide a space for these groups to freely express and share their emotional experiences.

AIMS

We aimed to reveal the most prevalent basic and complex emotions and sentiments in the posts of the patients and caregivers contemplating clinical trials on Reddit. Additionally, we aimed to categorize the types of users and posts.

METHODS

With the use of keywords referring to clinical trials, we searched for public posts on the subreddit 'cancer'. R studio v. 4.1.2 (2021-11-01) and NRC Emotion Lexicon was used for analysis. Following the theoretical framework of Plutchik's wheel of emotions, the analysis included: 8 basic emotions (anger, fear, anticipation, trust, surprise, sadness, joy, and disgust) and 4 types of complex emotions (primary, secondary, tertiary, and opposite dyads). We utilized the package 'PyPlutchik' to visualize the emotion wheels in Python 3.10.5.

RESULTS

A total of 241 posts were included in the final database. User types (129 patients, 112 caregivers) and post types (142 expressed shared experience, 77 expressed advice, and 85 conveyed both) were identified. Both positive (N = 2557, M = .68) and negative (N = 2154, M = .57) sentiments were high. The most prevalent basic emotions were: fear (N = 1702, M = .45), sadness (N = 1494, M = .40), trust (N = 1470, M = .44), and anticipation (N = 1376, M = .37). The prevalence of complex/dyadic emotions and their interpretation is further discussed.

CONCLUSION

In this contribution, we identified and discussed prevalent emotions such as fear, sadness, optimism, hope, despair, and outrage that mirror the psychological state of users and affect the medical choices they make. The insights gained in our study contribute to the understanding of the barriers and reinforcers to participation in trials and can improve the ability of healthcare professionals to assist patients when confronted with this choice.

Tailored Messages About Research Participation: Using an Interactive Information Aid to Improve Study Recruitment

After a diagnosis of cancer (or other serious disease), patients may be asked to consider joining a clinical trial. Because most people are unfamiliar with the scientific concepts that are necessary to the provision of meaningful informed consent, patient education is necessary. Increasing knowledge alone is not sufficient; understanding how clinical trial participation aligns with personal circumstances and knowledge is central to the decision-making process. In this study, 302 cancer patients and survivors evaluated an interactive information aid (IA) designed to inform their decision to join a research study or clinical trial by providing tailored information to patients' responses to questions pertaining to seven key barriers or facilitators of clinical trial participation. The development of the IA was done with input from the authors' Clinical Translational Science Institute; linked components of the IA were vetted by members and leaders of the institution's NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Results of the study indicated that the information aid was successful in significantly reducing fears and increasing knowledge, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions about research participation relative to a control condition. Thus, an interactive information aid that provides information that is responsive to patients' values, knowledge, and personal circumstances can help patients to be better prepared to consider a decision about research participation.

Development of a multi-component intervention to promote participation of Black and Latinx individuals in biomedical research

INTRODUCTION

Barriers to research participation by racial and ethnic minority group members are multi-factorial, stem from historical social injustices and occur at participant, research team, and research process levels. The informed consent procedure is a key component of the research process and represents an opportunity to address these barriers. This manuscript describes the development of the Strengthening Translational Research in Diverse Enrollment (STRIDE) intervention, which aims to improve research participation by individuals from underrepresented groups.

METHODS

We used a community-engaged approach to develop an integrated, culturally, and literacy-sensitive, multi-component intervention that addresses barriers to research participation during the informed consent process. This approach involved having Community Investigators participate in intervention development activities and using community engagement studios and other methods to get feedback from community members on intervention components.

RESULTS

The STRIDE intervention has three components: a simulation-based training program directed toward clinical study research assistants that emphasizes cultural competency and communication skills for assisting in the informed consent process, an electronic consent (eConsent) framework designed to improve health-related research material comprehension and relevance, and a "storytelling" intervention in which prior research participants from diverse backgrounds share their experiences delivered via video vignettes during the consent process.

CONCLUSIONS

The community engaged development approach resulted in a multi-component intervention that addresses known barriers to research participation and can be integrated into the consent process of research studies. Results of an ongoing study will determine its effectiveness at increasing diversity among research participants.

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.

Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste.

Improving informed consent: Stakeholder views

PURPOSE

Innovation will be required to improve the informed consent process in research. We aimed to obtain input from key stakeholders-research participants and those responsible for obtaining informed consent-to inform potential development of a multimedia informed consent "app."

METHODS

This descriptive study used a mixed-methods approach. Five 90-minute focus groups were conducted with volunteer samples of former research participants and researchers/research staff responsible for obtaining informed consent. Participants also completed a brief survey that measured background information and knowledge and attitudes regarding research and the use of technology. Established qualitative methods were used to conduct the focus groups and data analysis.

RESULTS

We conducted five focus groups with 41 total participants: three groups with former research participants (total n = 22), and two groups with researchers and research coordinators (total n = 19). Overall, individuals who had previously participated in research had positive views regarding their experiences. However, further discussion elicited that the informed consent process often did not meet its intended objectives. Findings from both groups are presented according to three primary themes: content of consent forms, experience of the informed consent process, and the potential of technology to improve the informed consent process. A fourth theme, need for lay input on informed consent, emerged from the researcher groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings add to previous research that suggests that the use of interactive technology has the potential to improve the process of informed consent. However, our focus-group findings provide additional insight that technology cannot replace the human connection that is central to the informed consent process. More research that incorporates the views of key stakeholders is needed to ensure that multimedia consent processes do not repeat the mistakes of paper-based consent forms.

Contribution of treatment acceptability to acceptance of randomization: an exploration

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Randomization to treatment is viewed unfavourably by many trial participants. There is limited research that investigated factors contributing to acceptance of randomization. This study explored the influence of participants' socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, and their perceived acceptability of the treatments on their acceptance of randomization (i.e. willingness to be randomized) in a clinical trial.

METHODS

Persons with insomnia (n = 383) were asked about their acceptance of randomization before and after they rated the acceptability of behavioural therapies for managing insomnia (sleep education and hygiene booklet, stimulus control therapy and sleep restriction therapy). Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, and treatment acceptability, were measured with established instruments. Logistic regression was applied to explore the association between participants' characteristics and treatment acceptability, and reported acceptance of randomization.

RESULTS

Prior to rating treatments' acceptability, 54.6% of participants were willing to be randomized; socio-demographic (age and ethnicity) and clinical (severity of insomnia's impact, state anxiety, depression, vitality and mental and social functions) contributed to acceptance of randomization. After rating the treatments' acceptability, 87.8% of participants were unwilling to be randomized; age, severity of insomnia's impact and acceptability of behavioural therapy were significantly associated with acceptance of randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings indicated that participants are likely to express unwillingness to be randomized once they receive treatment information and rate the acceptability of treatments. The reported non-acceptance may influence participants' behaviour (e.g. withdrawal, non-adherence) during the trial, suggesting the need to explore alternative designs for intervention evaluation.

"You Need to Be a Good Listener": Recruiters' Use of Relational Communication Behaviors to Enhance Clinical Trial and Research Study Accrual

Medical and research professionals who discuss clinical trials and research studies with potential participants face an often daunting challenge, particularly when recruiting from minority and underserved populations. This study reports on findings from a focus group study of 63 research coordinators, study nurses, professional recruiters, and other professionals in Indianapolis, IN and Miami, FL who work to recruit from minority and underserved populations. These professionals discussed the importance of creating a sense of connection with potential participants as part of the recruitment and retention process. Building a relationship, however fleeting, involved a number of concrete behaviors, including listening to personal information, expressing empathy, and then providing reciprocal self-disclosures; having repeated contact, usually by working in the same environment over an extended period of time; demonstrating respect through politeness and the use of honorifics; going the extra mile for participants; offering flexibility in scheduling follow-up appointments; and creating a sense of personal and community trust by being truthful. The implications of these findings for clinical trial and research study accrual are discussed.

Exploring the motivations of patients with type 2 diabetes to participate in clinical trials: a qualitative analysis

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Certain patient groups are reluctant to engage with clinical research and consequently findings are not always truly representative of the wider population. With the emphasis on evidence-based clinical practice, clinical research as a core activity for the National Health Service (NHS) and the rising prevalence of diabetes within the United Kingdom (UK) it is important to understand what motivates people to volunteer for research in diabetes and identify the barriers to this involvement. This research interviewed 12 people with type 2 diabetes who had previously taken part in diabetes clinical trials. The transcripts of these interviews were analysed to identify themes that informed the study findings.There were wide ranging reasons for participating in clinical trials. Both altruistic and self-interest motivation were universally expressed. The thought of helping others was a powerful experience but for some there was a sense of duty to volunteer especially if they had benefited from NHS care. Participating was empowering, with extra access to healthcare professionals, practical information and support for their condition. Coping with the logistics of being in a trial relied upon a strong network of family and friends. Some felt anxious at the end of the trial having been supported during the research and appreciating the camaraderie of belonging to a group or team.This study provides insights into the motivations and barriers to involvement in clinical research in type 2 diabetes helping researchers to encourage and support more volunteers in clinical trials.

ABSTRACT

Background Certain patient groups are reluctant to engage with clinical research and consequently findings of the research are not always truly representative of the wider population. This, together with a growing prominence of evidence-based clinical practice, an increasing emphasis of clinical research as a core activity for the NHS and the rising prevalence of diabetes within the UK population, requires an understanding of motivations and barriers for patients consenting to participate in diabetes clinical trials.Methods To understand patients' motivations for participating in clinical trials in type 2 diabetes. We conducted a qualitative study involving 12 participants with type 2 diabetes with previous involvement in clinical trials. Individual, tape-recorded, semi structured interviews were conducted to explore motivations and experiences of the participants. We carried out thematic content analysis to identify themes, from which theoretical interpretations were formed.Results There were wide ranging reasons for participating in clinical trials. We identified 3 key themes: (1) Motivations ranged from altruism to self-interest; (2) participation in clinical trials was an empowering experience; and (3) key to participation was a strong network of support.Conclusion Patients are motivated to participate in clinical trials by a sense of altruism coupled with self-interest. This self-interest centres on the belief that participation would be an informative and empowering experience with increased access to healthcare professionals. However the ability to cope with the logistics of being in clinical trials relies upon an extensive and reliable network of support from family, friends, work colleagues and employers, together with a collaborative approach to their care from the researchers and their usual healthcare providers.

What can we learn from trial decliners about improving recruitment? Qualitative study

Background

Trials increasingly experience problems in recruiting participants. Understanding the causes of poor recruitment is critical to developing solutions. We interviewed people who had declined a trial of an innovative psychological therapy for depression (REFRAMED) about their response to the trial invitation, in order to understand their decision and identify ways to improve recruitment.

Methods

Of 214 people who declined the trial, 35 (16 %) gave permission to be contacted about a qualitative study to explore their decision. Analysis of transcripts of semi-structured interviews was informed by grounded theory.

Results

We interviewed 20 informants: 14 women and six men, aged 18 to 77 years. Many interviewees had prior experience of research participation and positive views of the trial. Interviewees’ decision making resembled a four-stage sequential process; in each stage they either decided not to participate in the trial or progressed to the next stage. In stage 1, interviewees assessed the invitation in the context of their experiences and attitudes; we term those who opted out at this stage ‘prior decliners’ as they had an established position of declining trials. In stage 2, interviewees assessed their own eligibility; those who judged themselves ineligible and opted out at this stage are termed ‘self-excluders’. In stage 3, interviewees assessed their need for the trial therapy and potential to benefit; we term those who decided they did not need the trial therapy and opted out at this stage ‘treatment decliners’. In stage 4, interviewees deliberated the benefits and costs of trial participation; those who opted out after judging that disadvantages outweighed advantages are termed ‘trial decliners’. Across all stages, most individuals declined because they judged themselves ineligible or not in need of the trial therapy. While ‘prior decliners’ are unlikely to respond to any trial recruitment initiative, the factors leading others to decline are amenable to amelioration as they do not arise from a rejection of trials or a personal stance.

Conclusions

To improve recruitment in similar trials, the most successful interventions are likely to address patients’ assessments of their eligibility and their potential to benefit from the trial treatment, rather than reducing trial burden.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN85784627. Registration date 10 August 2011.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1626-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical Trial and Research Study Recruiters' Verbal Communication Behaviors

The lack of accrual to research studies and clinical trials is a persistent problem with serious consequences: Advances in medical science depend on the participation of large numbers of people, including members of minority and underserved populations. The current study examines a critical determinant of accrual: the approach of patients by professional recruiters who request participation in research studies and clinical trials. Findings indicate that recruiters use a number of verbal strategies in the communication process, including translating study information (such as simplifying, using examples, and substituting specific difficult or problematic words), using linguistic reframing or metaphors, balancing discussions of research participation risks with benefits, and encouraging potential participants to ask questions. The identification of these verbal strategies can form the basis of new communication protocols that will help medical and nonmedical professionals communicate more clearly and effectively with patients and other potential participants about research studies and clinical trials, which should lead to increased accrual in the future.

Reasons for participation and non-participation in a randomized controlled trial: postal questionnaire surveys of women eligible for TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears)

Background Better understanding of motivators for, and barriers to, participation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in different study populations and settings has the potential to improve participation of historically under-represented groups (eg, women) in future trials.

Purpose To investigate reasons why women agreed, or declined, to participate in a RCT.

Methods In two postal questionnaire-based studies, we investigated women's reasons for participation or non-participation in TOMBOLA, a RCT comparing management policies for low-grade cervical abnormalities. Four-hundred and ninety-two TOMBOLA participants (response rate 56%) completed questionnaires on reasons for participation. One-hundred and thiry-seven women (38%) who declined TOMBOLA participation completed questionnaires on reasons for this.

Results Eighty percent of women reported that one of their reasons for attending their TOMBOLA recruitment appointment was worries about their smear result. Ninety-four percent participated in the RCT because it was a worthwhile contribution to the cervical screening programme and other women; for 70% this was the most important reason. These proportions did not vary by socio-demographic factors. Thirty-two percent thought participation would result in better care. The most common reason for non-participation was preference for follow-up from the woman's GP. Logistical issues (eg, inconvenient appointments, travel time, arranging time off work or child-care) were commonly cited. Fourteen percent were too frightened to participate; this was unrelated to the grade of the recruitment smear. Limitations Response rates were not high, but there was little evidence of response bias. Structured questionnaires were used.

Conclusions Future research should address how best to deliver information to ensure different social groups appreciate potential benefits of RCT participation and provide reassurance regarding fears about participation. Simple strategies (eg, appealing to the altruism of potential participants or offering flexible recruitment clinic locations and times) might enhance RCT recruitment rates. This in turn would ensure best use of research resources thus bringing the greatest benefits to participants and the population.

Interventions to improve patient understanding of cancer clinical trial participation: a systematic review

Patient misunderstanding of cancer clinical trial participation is identified as a critical issue and researchers have developed and tested a variety of interventions to improve patient understanding. This systematic review identified nine papers published between 2000 and 2013, to evaluate the effects of interventions to improve patient understanding of cancer clinical trial participation. Types of interventions included audio-visual information, revised written information and a communication training workshop. Interventions were conducted alone or in combination with other forms of information provision. The nine papers, all with methodological limitations, reported mixed effects on a small range of outcomes regarding improved patient understanding of cancer clinical trial participation. The methodological limitations included: (1) the intervention development process was poorly described; (2) only a small element of the communication process was addressed; (3) studies lacked evidence regarding what information is essential and critical to enable informed consent; (4) studies lacked reliable and valid outcome measures to show that patients are sufficiently informed to provide consent; and (5) the intervention development process lacked a theoretical framework. Future research needs to consider these factors when developing interventions to improve communication and patient understanding during the informed consent process.

Cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation: an integrative review with implications for patients' relational autonomy

PURPOSE

Oncology clinical trials are necessary for the improvement of patient care as they have the ability to confirm the efficacy and safety of novel cancer treatments and in so doing, contribute to a solid evidence base on which practitioners and patients can make informed treatment decisions. However, only 3-5 % of adult cancer patients enroll in clinical trials. Lack of participation compromises the success of clinical trials and squanders an opportunity for improving patient outcomes. This literature review summarizes the factors and contexts that influence cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation.

METHODS

An integrative review was undertaken within PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases for articles written between 1995 and 2012 and archived under relevant keywords. Articles selected were data-based, written in English, and limited to adult cancer patients.

RESULTS

In the 51 articles reviewed, three main types of factors were identified that influence cancer patients' decision making about participation in clinical trials: personal, social, and system factors. Subthemes included patients' trust in their physician and the research process, undue influence within the patient-physician relationship, and systemic social inequalities. How these factors interact and influence patients' decision-making process and relational autonomy, however, is insufficiently understood.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research is needed to further elucidate the sociopolitical barriers and facilitators of clinical trial participation and to enhance ethical practice within clinical trial enrolment. This research will inform targeted education and support interventions to foster patients' relational autonomy in the decision-making process and potentially improve clinical trial participation rates.

Why or why not? A qualitative analysis of low-income parents' reasons for accepting or rejecting simulated research enrollment for their children

A simulation of enrollment in a high- or low-risk research study was conducted with low-income, mostly minority parents. Simulation participants were provided scenarios based on actual low-risk research involving premature babies or actual high-risk research involving devices designed as bridges to heart transplants when all other therapies had failed. Their understanding of the procedures, risks, and benefits was based only the information gained from consent materials for the high- or low-risk protocol. After reviewing the consent information, participants were asked to state their own decision as to whether to enroll their simulated child in the described study. The low-income sample of parents who participated in this simulation were overwhelmingly positive about enrolling a child in the two studies; 66% of those considering the high-risk study and 91% in the low-risk study indicated they would enroll a child. Parents in both conditions cited the value of learning ways to improve the health care of others as a primary reason for agreeing; they also valued knowledge for its own sake. Reasons for refusal varied according to the risk level. Many were unwilling to accept the risks involved in the high-risk study; parents considering the low-risk study of premature infants were concerned about possible discomforts for the infant. More of them also cited the length of the study and the need for repetitious follow-up visits. Information gained from the stated rationales gives insights into ways that researchers can enhance consent materials and the recruitment process.

The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature.

RESULTS

Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.

A question prompt list for patients with advanced cancer in the final year of life: development and cross-cultural evaluation

BACKGROUND

Clinicians and patients find prognosis and end-of-life care discussions challenging. Misunderstanding one's prognosis can contribute to poor decision-making and end-of-life quality of life. A question prompt list (booklet of questions patients can ask clinicians) targeting these issues may help overcome communication barriers. None exists for end-of-life discussions outside the palliative care setting.

AIM

To develop/pilot a question prompt list facilitating discussion/planning of end-of-life care for oncology patients with advanced cancer from Australia and the United States and to explore acceptability, perceived benefits/challenges of using the question prompt list, suggestions for improvements and the necessity of country-specific adaptations.

DESIGN

An expert panel developed a question prompt list targeting prognosis and end-of-life issues. Australian/US semi-structured interviews and one focus group elicited feedback about the question prompt list. Transcribed data were analysed using qualitative methods.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-four patients with advanced cancer (15 Australian/19 US) and 13 health professionals treating such patients (7 Australian/6 US) from two Australian and one US cancer centre participated.

RESULTS

Most endorsed the entire question prompt list, though a minority queried the utility/appropriateness of some questions. Analysis identified four global themes: (1) reinforcement of known benefits of question prompt lists, (2) appraisal of content and suggestions for further developments, (3) perceived benefits and challenges in using the question prompt list and (4) contrasts in Australian/US feedback. These contrasts necessitated distinct Australian/US final versions of the question prompt list.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants endorsed the question prompt list as acceptable and useful. Feedback resulted in two distinct versions of the question prompt list, accommodating differences between Australian and US approaches to end-of-life discussions, highlighting the appropriateness of tailoring communication aides to individual populations.

Development of a cancer clinical trials multi-media intervention: clinical trials: are they right for you?

OBJECTIVE

To describe processes used to develop a multi-media psycho-educational intervention to prepare patients for a discussion about cancer clinical trials (CTs).

METHODS

Guided by a Steering Committee, formative research was conducted to develop an informative and engaging tool about cancer CTs. Twenty-three patients and caregivers participated in formative in-depth interviews to elicit information about perceptions of cancer CTs to inform production of a new media product.

RESULTS

Formative research revealed participants had concerns about experimentation, held beliefs that cancer CTs were for patients who had no other treatment options, and wanted a balance of information about pros and cons of CT participation. The value of physicians as credible spokespersons and the use of patients as role-models were supported. Using iterative processes, the production team infused the results into creation of a multimedia psycho-educational intervention titled Clinical Trials: Are they Right for You?

CONCLUSION

An intervention, developed through an iterative consumer-focused process involving multiple stakeholders and formative research, may result in an engaging informative product.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

If found to be efficacious, Clinical Trials: Are they Right for You? is a low-cost and easily disseminated multimedia psycho-educational intervention to assist cancer patients with making an informed decision about cancer CTs.

[Perception by cancer patients of biomedical research in the era of large-scale biobanking]

In French hospitals, patients are increasingly asked to participate in research, particularly in oncology where the development of research is stimulated at a national level (plan Cancer). This article express our thoughts based on the literature about the perception by cancer patients of research activities developed in the care centre where they are treated. We focus mainly on the consent for biobanking in a context in which cancer patients are routinely requested to donate tumour samples for research. This article presents the results of a survey among patients treated in a comprehensive cancer centre. The available literature shows that patients have an overall positive image of medical research and of the existence of research activities intertwined with medical care. Patients are globally expressing a wish for more proposals to participate in research in collaboration with scientific teams.

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.

Patients' regrets after participating in a randomized controlled trials depended on their involvement in the decision making

OBJECTIVE

To identify the factors associated with long-term regrets expressed a posteriori by randomized controlled trial (RCT) participants questioned about their decision to participate in an RCT.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Participants were questioned 6 years on average after their inclusion in a breast cancer adjuvant therapy RCT. Among 115 women from 21 centers, 93 (81%) answered a self-administered questionnaire based on the Decision Regret Scale (DRS).

RESULTS

Mean DRS score was 16.8 (standard deviation=15.9); 43.0% of participants expressed mild regret, and 25.8% expressed moderate to strong regret. A quarter of the women (25.6%) said that the decision was taken by the doctor alone, and 13.5% said it was not consistent with their own wishes. In the multivariate ordinal regression analysis, an involuntarily passive role in decision making was found to be associated with greater regret (cumulative proportional odds ratio=7.3, 95% confidence interval=2.0-27.6), regardless of age and being allotted or not to the standard treatment in the RCT.

CONCLUSION

Whether patients' regret depended on their level of participation in the decision making or vice versa could not be determined in this cross-sectional survey, but efforts should be made to ensure that patients' participation in trials is always based on an active personal decision.

Recommendations for enhancing clinical trials education: a review of the literature

This study aims to apply the evidence-based practice (EBP) process to determine the factors that influence patients' understanding of, participation in, and satisfaction with clinical trials, the informed consent process, and treatment decisions and to make recommendations for improving clinical trials education. Beginning with evidence retrieval, the authors identified key search terms and searched MEDLINE--Ovid, MEDLINE--PubMed, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to identify articles published between July 2001 and July 2006 that highlighted clinical trials education. The articles were reviewed for clinical trials patient education information, clinician methods of communicating clinical trial information to patients, and patient satisfaction with the clinical trials process, including the informed consent process. As a result, practice changes were recommended for the patient/family, staff/community, and institution. From the literature review, 81 articles were identified. Recurring themes included decision-making, patient education, staff education, and pediatrics. Most articles focused on methods and strategies aimed at improving education at the patient/family, staff/community, and institutional levels. The issues surrounding clinical trial education are complex due to multiple variables interfering with poor patient understanding of, participation in, and satisfaction with clinical trial treatment decisions. On the basis of our findings, we recommend that clinicians involved in educating patients, families, staff, and communities about clinical trials have an awareness of and understanding for very complex issues.

Recruitment of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients proved challenging in a multicentre biobanking study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the challenges of recruiting ovarian cancer patients and healthy controls to a cancer biobanking study.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The study was set up in gynecological cancer centers in 10 National Health Service trusts across the United Kingdom. Women were approached if they were undergoing investigations/awaiting treatment for ovarian cancer, had a previous diagnosis of ovarian cancer, or were attending for annual screening in an ovarian cancer screening trial. Those who consented completed a detailed epidemiologic questionnaire, provided blood and tissue samples if appropriate.

RESULTS

The overall proportion of those recruited compared with the expected targets was 76.4% for healthy controls, 86.0% for old cases, and 46.9% for new cases. Only 4 of 10 (40%) centers recruited over 50% of their target for new cases. Unwillingness to participate was reported as primarily because of patients being too unwell, wanting to focus only on their treatment, or having insufficient time because of conflicting medical appointments. Concerns about use of personal data or tissue and blood samples for genetic research and lack of direct benefit were reported as significant challenges to recruitment.

CONCLUSION

When setting recruitment targets for patients undergoing investigations or awaiting treatment for cancer (new cases), it is important to consider lower response rates because of various patient, logistical, and trial-specific challenges.

Quantifying the recruitment challenges with couple-based interventions for cancer: applications to early-stage breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

Despite mounting evidence supporting the use of psychosocial interventions to promote adaptation to cancer, enrolling participants into these interventions is challenging. This is particularly salient for couple-based interventions, and newer, more targeted recruitment strategies to increase enrollment are needed. However, there have been few published empirical studies focused specifically on recruitment-related variables associated with enrollment into these types of interventions. To better understand how to encourage participation in couple-based psychosocial interventions for cancer, we examined facilitating and impeding factors to enrollment into a couple-based intervention for women with early-stage breast cancer.

METHOD

In this sample of 99 women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer, patient demographic variables and method of approaching eligible patients were examined as predictors of enrollment into a randomized controlled trial comparing couple-based relationship enhancement with treatment as usual.

RESULTS

Results indicated that women were more likely to enroll if they were contacted at home or at a follow-up medical appointment rather than when first diagnosed at a busy multidisciplinary clinic; they were also more likely to enroll the closer they lived to the research facility.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to decreasing participant burden, timing and setting of recruitment efforts may have important implications for enhancing participation rates in couple-based intervention studies for cancer.

Experiences of randomization: interviews with patients and clinicians in the SPCG-IV trial

OBJECTIVE

Recruitment of both patients and clinicians to randomized trials is difficult. Low participation carries the risk of terminating studies early and making them invalid owing to insufficient statistical power. This study investigated patients' and clinicians' experiences of randomization with the aim of facilitating trial participation in the future.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a qualitative study using content analysis. Patients offered to participate in a randomized trial and randomizing clinicians were interviewed. Five participants, four non-participants and five randomizing clinicians were interviewed, 2-8 years from randomization.

RESULTS

Clinicians used strategies in interaction with the patients to facilitate decision making. Patients' attitudes differed and experiences of relatives or friends were often stated as reasons for treatment preferences. Patients described that letting chance decide treatment was a difficult barrier to overcome for randomization. The clinicians used a number of different strategies perceived to make randomization more acceptable to their patients. The clinicians' own motivation for randomizing patients for trials depended on the medical relevance of the study question and the clinicians' major obstacle was to maintain equipoise over time. Regular meetings with the study group helped to maintain equipoise and motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

To establish a good platform for randomization the clinician needs to know about the patient's treatment preferences and the patient's attitude concerning the role of the clinician to facilitate decision making. The strategies used by the clinicians were perceived as helpful and could be tested in an intervention study.

A systematic review highlights threats to validity in studies of barriers to cancer trial participation

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the barriers, modifiers, and benefits involved in participating in randomized controlled trials of cancer therapies as perceived by health care providers and patients.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify published and unpublished studies in any language using electronic databases searched from 1996 to 2004, contact with experts, and reference lists. All study designs were acceptable provided relevant data were reported. Two reviewers were involved in the selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment processes. Studies were combined in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Fifty-six studies met the inclusion criteria and represented the perspective of the patient or the health care provider or both. Although a range of barriers to trial participation were identified, a number of threats to the internal and external validity of the included studies limited interpretation of the evidence.

CONCLUSION

The limitations within the evidence base do not permit a clear interpretation of the barriers, moderators, and benefits involved in participation in cancer trials. We recommend that trialists prospectively identify the issues relevant to a particular trial using the current research as a starting point. We report checklists to guide this process.

Volunteer human subjects' understandings of their participation in a biomedical research experiment

The paper focuses on how volunteer human subjects in research understand their own participation in experimentation. We ask how they view their own role, the experimental setting, and how they articulate their understanding of the researcher-subject relationship. The empirical basis of the study is participant-observation and qualitative semi-structures interviews with volunteers in an experimental setting far removed from the more commonly studied randomised control trial (RCT), namely, the early stage testing of a prototype instrument for breast imaging. Analysis of this empirical data leads us to conclude that research subjects do not conform solely to one or other of the models of the researcher-subject relationship suggested in the literature. Rather, the interaction needs to be considered as a social situation which volunteer subjects actively negotiate in real time. They move through multiple roles and identities as part of the navigation through unfamiliar social territory, in order to establish a relationship in which they can feel socially comfortable and appropriately valued.