Primary care physicians' attitudes, knowledge, and practices related to cancer clinical trials

Primary physicians' attitudes toward their patients receiving a proposal to participate in a vaccine trial

A trustworthy relationship between primary physicians (PPs) and their patients is crucial for vaccine acceptance. Little is known about attitudes of PPs toward participation of their patients in a preventive vaccine trial (PVT) proposed by investigation sites.A cross-sectional study was conducted in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region (France) including an anonymous questionnaire for general practitioners (GPs) and other specialists as well as face-to-face interviews. A scenario of a patient, with chronic medical conditions, invited to participate in a PVT and reporting this situation to his/her PP was drawn up. PPs' attitudes were assessed in quantitative approach by a 5-point Likert scale and in qualitative approach by semi-directed individual interviews.Among the 521 respondents to the questionnaire, 429 (82.3%) were GPs and 92 (17.7%) were other specialists. Only 7.5% (39/521) of respondents regularly practice clinical research. Confronted with the scenario, 312 respondents (59.8%) declared they would give their opinion spontaneously. Before giving their opinion, PPs would like more information about the trial (91.4%, n = 476). Whatever their attitude, 488 (93.7%) would be influenced by available safety data. Face-to-face interviews confirmed that PPs lack of knowledge about clinical research, and would like to obtain information from investigators, particularly about safety.PPs seem to be concerned by the decision of their patients to participate or not in a PVT but would like more information about the trial and clinical research before giving their opinion. Getting PPs to be more involved in the enrollment of patients in PVT may improve recruitment.

Perceptions and attitudes toward clinical trials in adolescent and young adults with cancer: a systematic review

Purpose

Although cancer clinical trials (CT) offer opportunities for novel treatments that may lead to improved outcomes, adolescents and young adults (AYA) are less likely to participate in these trials as compared to younger children and older adults. We aimed to identify the perceptions and attitudes toward CT in AYA that influence trial participation.

Materials and methods

A systematic review of cancer literature was conducted that assessed perceptions and attitudes toward CT enrollment limited to AYA patients (defined as age 15–39). We estimated the frequency of identified themes by pooling identified studies.

Results

In total, six original research articles were identified that specifically addressed perceptions or attitudes that influenced CT participation in AYA patients. Three studies were conducted at pediatric centers – one at an AYA unit, one at an adult cancer hospital, and one was registry based. Major themes identified for CT acceptability included: hope for positive clinical affect, altruism, and having autonomy. Potential deterrents included: prolonged hospitalization, worry of side effects, and discomfort with experimentation.

Conclusion

Limited information is available with regard to the perceptions and attitudes toward CT acceptability among AYA patients, especially those treated at adult cancer centers, which prevents generalization of data and themes. Future research assessing strategies for understanding and supporting CT decision-making processes among AYA represents a key focus for future funding to improve CT enrollment.

Primary care physicians' attitudes and beliefs about cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Cancer clinical trials give patients access to state-of-the-art treatments and facilitate the translation of findings into mainstream clinical care. However, patients from racial and ethnic minority groups remain underrepresented in clinical trials. Primary care physicians are a trusted source of information for patients, yet their role in decision-making about cancer treatment and referrals to trial participation has received little attention. The aim of this study was to determine physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about cancer clinical trials, their experience with trials, and their interest in appropriate training about trials.

METHODS

A total of 613 physicians in the New York City area primarily serving patients from ethnic and racial minority groups were invited via email to participate in a 20-min online survey. Physicians were asked about their patient population, trial knowledge and attitudes, interest in training, and personal demographics. Using calculated scale variables, we used descriptive statistical analyses to better understand physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about trials.

RESULTS

A total of 127 physicians completed the survey. Overall, they had low knowledge about and little experience with trials. However, they generally had positive attitudes toward trials, with 41.4% indicating a strong interest in learning more about their role in trials, and 35.7% indicating that they might be interested. Results suggest that Black and Latino physicians and those with more positive attitudes and beliefs were more likely to be interested in future training opportunities.

CONCLUSION

Primary care physicians may be an important group to target in trying to improve cancer clinical trial participation among minority patients. Future work should explore methods of educational intervention for such interested providers.

Social Determinants of Health: A Framework for Studying Cancer Health Disparities and Minority Participation in Research

The theory of social determinants of health (SDH) posits that the health of people and communities is affected by social and economic factors (i.e., economic stability, education, neighborhood and built environment, health and health care, and social and community context). These interrelated constructs may negatively affect minority patients’ ability to participate in cancer research. Understanding SDH can help nurse researchers assess and address barriers to research participation, as well as design trials to improve minority patients’ cancer-related health.

Perceptions of Cancer Clinical Research Among African American Men in North Carolina

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the men and women who participated in our Focus Groups and shared with us their very personal cancer experience. Their insight is valuable, and will inform and improve cancer care for future generations. The authors thank the Greensboro area Community Research Advocates - especially April Durr, Elvira Mebane, Marie McAdoo, Kathy Norcott, and Cindy Taylor - who assisted in the conduct of the study, including interpretation of results. They also thank Gratia Wright of First Research Group for her expertise in moderating and executing all of the focus groups, and Lindsey Haynes-Maslow for her assistance in responding to reviewer comments. The study was funded as a part of the Carolina Community Network program, funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (U01-CA114629). This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

OBJECTIVE

The problem of cancer health disparities is substantial. Clinical trials are widely advocated as a means of reducing disparities and bringing state-of-the-art care to the broader community, where most cancer care is delivered. This study sought to develop a better understanding of why disproportionately few African American men enroll in clinical trials given their substantial cancer burden.

DESIGN

This study applied community-based participatory research (CBPR) methods to design and conduct four focus groups of African American male cancer survivors and their caregivers in North Carolina.

RESULTS

Among major themes, participants expressed confusion about the relationship between clinical trials, treatment, and research: signifying patient confusion and misinterpretation of common clinical trial terminology. Social norms including gender barriers and generational differences remain problematic; participants often reported that men do not talk about health issues, are unwilling to go to the doctor, and exhibit misapprehension and distrust regarding trials. Participants perceived this misunderstanding as detrimental to community health and expressed the need for more clarity in clinical trials information and a more fundamental social openness and communication about cancer detection and treatment.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate the importance of clinical trial education in both traditional provider referral to trials and also in general patient navigation. To dispel pervasive misapprehension regarding placebos, clinical trial information should emphasize the role of standard care in modern cancer treatment trials. Many participants described willingness to participate in a trial upon physician recommendation, suggesting merit in improving patient-physician communication through culturally competent terminology and trial referral systems.

Psychosocial barriers and facilitators to clinical trial enrollment and adherence for adolescents with cancer

Adolescents (aged 15-19 years) have not experienced the same survival gains as children and older adults diagnosed with cancer. Poor clinical trial enrollment and adherence rates among adolescents may account for some of this disparity. Although biological, regulatory, systemic, and practice-related challenges to clinical trial enrollment and adherence have been examined, studies of psychosocial factors, which can serve as barriers or facilitators to enrollment and adherence, are limited. To bring attention to these psychological factors, we reviewed existing literature on psychosocial barriers and facilitators that can affect an adolescent's decision to enroll and adhere to a clinical trial. We also provide potential strategies to address psychosocial factors affecting clinical trial accrual and adherence.

Attitudinal barriers to participation in oncology clinical trials: factor analysis and correlates of barriers

Patient participation in cancer clinical trials is low. Little is known about attitudinal barriers to participation, particularly among patients who may be offered a trial during an imminent initial oncology consult. The aims of the present study were to confirm the presence of proposed subscales of a recently developed cancer clinical trial attitudinal barriers measure, describe the most common cancer clinical trials attitudinal barriers, and evaluate socio-demographic, medical and financial factors associated with attitudinal barriers. A total of 1256 patients completed a survey assessing demographic factors, perceived financial burden, prior trial participation and attitudinal barriers to clinical trials participation. Results of a factor analysis did not confirm the presence of the proposed four attitudinal barriers subscale/factors. Rather, a single factor represented the best fit to the data. The most highly-rated barriers were fear of side-effects, worry about health insurance and efficacy concerns. Results suggested that less educated patients, patients with non-metastatic disease, patients with no previous oncology clinical trial participation, and patients reporting greater perceived financial burden from cancer care were associated with higher barriers. These patients may need extra attention in terms of decisional support. Overall, patients with fewer personal resources (education, financial issues) report more attitudinal barriers and should be targeted for additional decisional support.

Assessment of perceived cost to the patient and other barriers to clinical trial participation

PURPOSE

Less than 5% of patients with cancer participate in trials. Few studies have specifically addressed the role of cost to the patient as an influence on trial participation. Our main purpose was to determine the importance of added cost as a barrier to clinical trial participation in the community setting. Our secondary goal was to determine the most prevalent barriers to trial participation for patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Four community practices in New England issued surveys to consecutive cohorts of patients with cancer. Patients were assessed for eligibility for clinical trials at their practice site. Trial-eligible patients who declined participation were asked to select reasons that contributed to their decision.

RESULTS

Surveys were issued to 1,755 patients. Seventy-one percent of all trial-eligible patients returned surveys. Forty-four percent of nonparticipating trial-eligible patients did not recall hearing about clinical trials from their provider. The most common reasons cited by trial-eligible patients for declining trial participation were fear of adverse effects (50%) and discomfort with random assignment (44%). Twenty-eight percent cited concerns about added cost, and 12% noted cost as the most important factor in their decision.

CONCLUSION

Concerns about adverse effects and random assignment were the most common reasons cited by patients declining trial participation in four community oncology practices in New England. Cost considerations were important for a significant proportion of these patients. Many patients eligible for trial participation were not informed by their provider about the availability of research trials.

Engaging referring physicians in the clinical trial process

By building relationships with referring physicians and educating them about the clinical trial process, oncologists can help increase trial accrual among patients with cancer.

Nurse Practitioners' attitudes about cancer clinical trials and willingness to recommend research participation

BACKGROUND

Recruitment and retention of human participants in cancer clinical trials remains challenging for all investigators. Nurse Practitioners (NPs) are in a prime position to discuss, educate and refer patients to clinical trials as many NPs work in ethnically and geographically diverse primary care settings in the U.S., yet they remain an untapped resource. We examined NPs' general attitudes toward cancer clinical trial recommendations and assessed their willingness to recommend such trials

METHODS

We randomly surveyed 455 primary care NPs in the state of Pennsylvania during 2008 with an adjusted response rate of 55.3%. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize NPs' demographic and practice characteristics, and logistic regression was used to assess the relative influence of the various attitudes and beliefs on the likelihood that the NP would bring up clinical trials as a treatment option.

RESULTS

NPs were more likely to bring up the topic of clinical trials with at least some patients if they were comfortable discussing treatment options with their cancer patients (OR=4.29, p=0.001), were comfortable discussing options of entering a clinical trial for treatment (OR=3.54, p=0.003), had adequate time during patients' visit to explain clinical trials (OR=3.40, p=0.008), and if they believed that patients in clinical trials were receiving the best medical treatment (OR=3.34, p=0.019). NPs who were comfortable discussing cancer clinical trials were almost 5 times more likely to think clinical trials were useful (OR=4.70; 95% CI=1.81-12.19; p=0.001). Nearly three-quarters (72.6%) of the entire responder sample reported three or more ethical concerns associated with clinical trials, including issues of randomization, informed consent, and patient burden.

CONCLUSIONS

NPs are willing to recommend clinical trials but need more education about the benefits and burdens of clinical trials, the associated ethical concerns, and evidence regarding the translatability of research to clinical practice to increase their knowledge and comfort level with discussing clinical trials.

Recruitment of minority and underserved populations in the United States: the Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities experience

OBJECTIVE

The recruitment of minority and underserved individuals to research studies is often problematic. The purpose of this study was to describe the recruitment experiences of projects that actively recruited minority and underserved populations as part of The Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities (CPHHD) initiative.

METHODS

Principal investigators and research staff from 17 research projects at eight institutions across the United States were surveyed about their recruitment experiences. Investigators reported the study purpose and design, recruitment methods employed, recruitment progress, problems or challenges to recruitment, strategies used to address these problems, and difficulties resulting from Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) requirements. Additionally, information was collected about participant burden and compensation. Burden was classified on a three-level scale. Recruitment results were reported as of March 31, 2007.

RESULTS

Recruitment attainment ranged from 52% to 184% of the participant recruitment goals. Commonly reported recruitment problems included administrative issues, and difficulties with establishing community partnerships and contacting potential participants. Long study questionnaires, extended follow-up, and narrow eligibility criteria were also problematic. The majority of projects reported difficulties with IRB approvals, though few reported issues related to HIPAA requirements. Attempted solutions to recruitment problems varied across Centers and included using multiple recruitment sites and sources and culturally appropriate invitations to participate. Participant burden and compensation varied widely across the projects, however, accrual appeared to be inversely associated with the amount of participant burden for each project.

CONCLUSION

Recruitment of minority and underserved populations to clinical trials is necessary to increase study generalizbility and reduce health disparities. Our results demonstrate the importance of flexible study designs which allow adaptation to recruitment challenges. These experiences also highlight the importance of involving community members and reducing participant burden to achieve success in recruiting individuals from minority and underserved populations.

Participation of Asian-American women in cancer chemoprevention research: physician perspectives

To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the participation of Asian Americans in cancer prevention research. In 2002, the authors mailed surveys to primary care physicians in Northern California to assess their knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and barriers concerning the participation of Asian-American women in breast cancer chemoprevention research. The response rate was 52.3% (n=306 physicians). For physician barriers, most respondents selected lack of study knowledge (73%) and effort required to establish eligibility (75%) and to explain risks and benefits (68%). For patient barriers, most physicians chose the following: physicians did not inform patients about trials (76%), limited English proficiency (78%), researcher-participant language discordance (74%), and complex protocols (69%). Significantly more Asian-American physicians than non-Asian-American physicians (but a majority of each) selected as patient barriers a lack of culturally relevant information on breast cancer, a lack of knowledge about research concepts, and fear of experimentation. A majority of Asian-American physicians also selected the following patient barriers: lack of knowledge of preventive care or breast cancer, work concern, misperception that experimental treatment is inferior, personal modesty, and lack of personal benefit. In multivariate analyses, physicians who were in practice longer, who spent more time with patients, or who knew of tools to estimate breast cancer risk were more likely to discuss such trials with Asian-American women; whereas male physicians and those who believed that Asian-American women's deference to physicians was a barrier were less likely to have discussed such trials with Asian-American women. Efforts to increase research participation among Asian Americans should include physician education and linguistically appropriate recruitment efforts.

Effect of a clinical trial alert system on physician participation in trial recruitment

BACKGROUND

Failure to recruit a sufficient number of eligible subjects in a timely manner represents a major impediment to the success of clinical trials. Physician participation is vital to trial recruitment but is often limited.

METHODS

After 12 months of traditional recruitment to a clinical trial, we activated our electronic health record (EHR)-based clinical trial alert (CTA) system in selected outpatient clinics of a large, US academic health care system. When a patient's EHR data met selected trial criteria during the subsequent 4-month intervention period, the CTA prompted physician consideration of the patient's eligibility and facilitated secure messaging to the trial's coordinator. Subjects were the 114 physicians practicing at selected EHR-equipped clinics throughout our study. We compared differences in the number of physicians participating in recruitment and their recruitment rates before and after CTA activation.

RESULTS

The CTA intervention was associated with significant increases in the number of physicians generating referrals (5 before and 42 after; P < .001) and enrollments (5 before and 11 after; P = .03), a 10-fold increase in those physicians' referral rate (5.7/mo before and 59.5/mo after; rate ratio, 10.44; 95% confidence interval, 7.98-13.68; P<.001), and a doubling of their enrollment rate (2.9/mo before and 6.0/mo after; rate ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-3.46; P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an EHR-based CTA led to significant increases in physicians' participation in and recruitment rates to an ongoing clinical trial. Given the trend toward the EHR implementation in health care centers engaged in clinical research, this approach may represent a much-needed solution to the common problem of inadequate trial recruitment.