Measuring cancer clinical trial understanding

Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to Enhance Participation of Racial/Ethnic Minorities in Clinical Trials: A 10-Year Systematic Review

There has not been a significant improvement in the rate of clinical trial accrual in more than 20 years. Worse, the challenge of inadequate representation among racial and ethnic minorities also persists, deepening disparities in health. Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is a participatory communication method that centers on effective dialogue between researchers and community stakeholders with the goal of creating an equitable partnership for health and social change. The objective of the current study was to provide an update since a systematic review in 2012, on the current status of the empirical research, with a particular focus on the elements of CBPR methods used to improve the rate of accrual of members of racial and ethnic minority communities for clinical trials. Our systematic review found a large increase in the number of CBPR related studies and studies related to racial and ethnic representation in research. More than 85% of studies employing CBPR methods saw statistically positive outcomes. Specifically, the elements of CBPR that are associated with these positive outcomes include community partner participation in (1) a study advisory committee, (2) data collection, (3) the development of interventions, and (4) participant recruitment. However, the results of our study indicate that researchers need to be more transparent about the extent of community participation as well as more thoroughly and accurately describe the nature of the partnership with members of minority communities in order to build upon the scientific literature on community-engaged methods.

Patients' understanding of clinical research: An Italian cancer patient survey

INTRODUCTION:

Patients' awareness of clinical research and their involvement in clinical trials is of great importance, but it is difficult to estimate the extent of knowledge on the research being undertaken.

METHODS:

We evaluated the level of knowledge about clinical research using a self-reporting survey distributed to 967 adult patients with cancer attending the Departments of Medical Oncology and Onco-Haematology Units of IRST IRCCS and 4 hospitals in the region of Emilia-Romagna, Italy. The questionnaire was composed of 10 specific items on research knowledge. Patients responding correctly to at least 8 of the 10 items were considered to have a good understanding of clinical research.

RESULTS:

The questionnaire was completed by 769 patients (response rate 79.5%). Only 19% of patients were found to have a good understanding of clinical research. Patients with higher education and those who had previous clinical trial experience showed a significantly better understanding. Fifty-three percent of patients said that they would be willing to participate in a trial studying a new drug and 75% expressed an interest in taking part in informative meetings/events about clinical studies.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our results show that patients' understanding of clinical research is limited and highlight an interest in learning more.

Patient reported measures of informed consent for clinical trials: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The subjective assessment of the adequacy of informed consent for clinical trials, and the potential difficulties associated with it, has led several studies to develop objective measures of informed consent for clinical trials. These objective measures of informed consent are often specific to a particular population or clinical condition and largely focus on understanding of (some or all of) the key elements of informed consent. Many of the developed tools are study-specific, but some validated measures exist. Of these validated measures, those which are reported by participants are of particular interest. Whether these objective tools conceptualize and measure informed consent in the same way is not known. As such, it is not clear whether meta-analyzing data from studies reporting different tools is worthwhile. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise the evidence on the overall conceptualisation and item content of validated patient reported measures of informed consent for clinical trials, and to identify core domains of potential importance for informed consent.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify relevant articles that described the development, and/or validation, of patient-reported measures of adequacy of informed consent for randomised controlled trials. Data was synthesised by classifying the items identified into domains and sub-domains which were determined by the nomenclature reported in included studies. Both for descriptions of included studies and of the instruments reported in those studies, descriptive statistics were used to describe general information and instrument detail. A narrative synthesis of the instruments and their inter-related domains and subdomains was conducted to identify areas of both convergence and divergence.

RESULTS

The search identified 8193 citations. After screening titles and abstracts, 29 full text articles were retrieved for further assessment. Of these 29, 14 complied with our pre-specified inclusion criteria with 15 not being eligible. Of the 14 instruments, three explicitly reported a theoretical or conceptual framework underpinning their development, a further three implicitly referred to the 'conceptual dimensions of informed consent' or 'principles of research ethics' as informing their development and eight reported no guiding theoretical framework. Only three of the 14 studies reported patient or public involvement in the development of the tool. One hundred and seventy nine items were included across the 14 instruments. The primary focus of the instruments was on understanding. Five core domains were identified which included: Autonomy; Consequences; Expectations; Purpose; and Individualisation. There was substantial variability in the coverage of different domains across measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the variability in the theoretical underpinning, development and domain coverage of existing patient-reported measures of informed consent for clinical trials. The conceptualisation of informed consent could benefit from being extended from a narrow focus on understanding to include broader considerations of decision-making. Meaningful involvement of potential trial participants during development of measures critical for tool relevance is also lacking. The identification of the key domains relevant to all stakeholders which could be measured to assess the informed consent process for clinical trials is needed.

What advanced cancer patients with limited treatment options know about clinical research: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Discussions between oncologists and advanced cancer patients (ACPs) may touch on the complex issue of clinical trial participation. Numerous initiatives have sought to improve the quality of these potentially difficult conversations. However, we have limited data about what ACPs know about clinical research as they enter such discussions as, to date, such research has focused on the period following informed consent. This study examines ACPs' understanding of clinical research in the treatment period before consent.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with adult ACPs with limited treatment options at four clinics in an academic medical center. So as not to influence patients' perspectives, interviewers probed patients' knowledge of clinical research only if the patient first brought up the topic. Interviews (40-60 min) were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically and via quantitative content analysis by an interdisciplinary team.

RESULTS

Of 78 patients recruited, 56 (72%) spontaneously brought up the topic of clinical research during interview and are included in this analysis. Qualitative thematic analysis and quantitative content analysis revealed that patients' knowledge varied in terms of (1) accuracy and (2) specificity (level of detail). ACPs who spoke with high specificity were not always accurate, and ACPs with accurate knowledge included both high- and low-specificity speakers.

CONCLUSIONS

ACPs' knowledge of clinical research is variable. Patients who can discuss the technical details of their care may or may not understand the broader purpose and procedures of clinical trials. Understanding this variability is important for improving patient-provider communication about clinical research and supporting efforts to provide individualized care for ACPs.

Searching for cures: Inner-city and rural patients' awareness and perceptions of cancer clinical trials

Fewer than 5% of cancer patients participate in clinical trials, making it challenging to test new therapies or interventions for cancer. Even within that small number, patients living in inner-city and rural areas are underrepresented in clinical trials. This study explores cancer patients' awareness and perceptions of cancer clinical trials, as well as their perceptions of patient-provider interactions related to discussing cancer clinical trials in order to improve accrual in cancer clinical trials. Interviews with 66 former and current in inner-city and rural cancer patients revealed a lack of awareness and understanding about clinical trials, as well as misconceptions about what clinical trials entail. Findings also revealed that commercials and television shows play a prominent role in forming inner-city and rural patients' attitudes and/or misconceptions about clinical trials. However, rural patients were more likely to hold unfavorable views about clinical trials than inner-city patients. Patient-provider discussions emerged as being crucial for increasing awareness of clinical trials among patients and recruiting them to trials. Findings from this study will inform communication strategies to enhance recruitment to cancer clinical trials by increasing awareness and countering misconceptions about clinical trials.

Therapeutic misconception correlates with willingness to participate in clinical drug trials among patients with epilepsy; need for better counseling

OBJECTIVES

To ensure the development of new effective treatments in medicine, clinical trials (CTs) need to be conducted. The study was aimed at assessing knowledge of and attitudes toward clinical drug trials among patients with epilepsy, along with factors that motivate them to participate in CTs. Use of this information could improve recruitment for future trials and enhance their quality.

METHODS

A 45-item questionnaire on the views of patients with epilepsy about CTs was developed. It included statements that the respondents assessed on a Likert scale from 1 ('strongly disagree') to 5 ('strongly agree'). The questionnaire was mailed to a random sample (n=1875) of members of the Finnish Epilepsy Association aged at least 18 years. In all, 342 questionnaires were returned, and 325 were accepted after exclusion.

RESULTS

The analysis indicates that the general attitudes of patients with epilepsy toward CTs are positive. Most of the patients with epilepsy saw participation in clinical trials as indispensable to new treatments becoming available. Retired respondents and persons who had developed epilepsy when young had inadequate knowledge of general issues related to CTs. Level of education and number of antiepileptic medications (AEDs) were significant predictors for failure to understand the nature and purpose of clinical research - i.e., for therapeutic misconception (TM). Additionally, strong correlation was found between TM and respondents' willingness to participate in clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The new treatments are often studied in patients with a high risk of TM and impaired comprehension of general procedures associated with CTs. Clinically, it may be worthwhile for the investigators to be able to recognize vulnerable individuals and pay special attention to the information provided on the purposes and methods of the trial, to contribute to high-quality AED studies.

Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials

Background

Informed consent of trial participants is both an ethical and a legal requirement. When facing a decision about trial participation, potential participants are provided with information about the trial and have the opportunity to have any questions answered before their degree of ‘informed-ness’ is assessed, usually subjectively, and before they are asked to sign a consent form. Currently, standardised methods for assessing informed consent have tended to be focused on aspects of understanding and associated outcomes, rather than on the process of consent and the steps associated with decision-making.

Methods

Potential trial participants who were approached regarding participation in one of three randomised controlled trials were asked to complete a short questionnaire to measure their deliberation about trial participation. A total of 136 participants completed the 10-item questionnaire (DelibeRATE) before they made an explicit decision about trial participation (defined as signing the clinical trial consent form). Overall DelibeRATE scores were compared and investigated for differences between trial consenters and refusers.

Results

No differences in overall DelibeRATE scores were identified. In addition, there was no significant difference between overall score and the decision to participate, or not, in the parent trial.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively measure the deliberation stage of the informed consent decision-making process of potential trial participants across different conditions and clinical areas. Although there were no differences detected in overall scores or scores of trial consenters and refusers, we did identify some interesting findings. These findings should be taken into consideration by those designing trials and others interested in developing and implementing measures of potential trial participants decision making during the informed consent process for research.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register ISRCTN60695184 (date of registration: 13 May 2009), ISRCTN80061723 (date of registration: 8 March 2010), ISRCTN69423238 (date of registration: 18 November 2010)

Unique perception of clinical trials by Korean cancer patients

BACKGROUND

In the past few years, the number of clinical trials has increased rapidly in East Asia, especially for gastric and hepatobiliary cancer that are prevalent in Asian populations. However, the actual degree of understanding or perceptions of clinical trials by cancer patients in East Asian countries have seldom been studied.

METHODS

Between July 1st and November 30th of 2011, we conducted a prospective study to survey cancer patients regarding their awareness of, and willingness to participate in, a clinical trial. Patients with gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary cancer who visited the Hematology-Oncology outpatient clinic at Samsung Medical Center (SMC) were enrolled. A total of 21 questions were asked including four questions which used the Visual analogue scale (VAS) score.

RESULTS

In this survey study, 1,000 patients were asked to participate and 675 patients consented to participate (67.5%). The awareness of clinical trials was substantially higher in patients who had a higher level of education (p<0.001), were married (p=0.004), and had a higher economic status (p=0.001). However, the willingness to participate in a clinical trial was not affected by the level of education or economic status of patients. The most influential factors for patient willingness to participate were a physician recommendation (n=181, 26.8%), limited treatment options (n=178, 26.4%), and expectations of effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs (n=142, 21.0%). Patients with previous experience in clinical trials had a greater willingness to participate in clinical trials compared to patients without previous experience (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This large patient cohort survey study showed that Korean cancer patients are more aware of clinical trials, but awareness did not translate into willingness to participate.

A surveillance system for monitoring, public reporting, and improving minority access to cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has recommended that each person with cancer should have access to clinical trials, which have been associated with improving care quality and disparities. With no effective enrollment monitoring system, patterns of trial enrollment remain unclear.

PURPOSE

We developed a population-based, statewide system designed to facilitate monitoring of cancer trial enrollment and targeting of future interventions to improve it.

METHODS

Person-level cancer incidence data from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry (NCCCR), person-level treatment trial accrual data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and county-level Area Resource Files (ARF) measures for 12 years, 1996-2007, were studied. Deidentified person-level data necessitated county-level analysis. Enrollment rates were estimated as the ratio of trial enrollment to cancer incidence for each race, gender, year, and county combination. Multivariable analysis examined factors associated with trial accrual. Sensitivity analyses examined spurious fluctuations and temporal discordance of incidence and enrollment.

RESULTS

The NCI treatment trial enrollment rate was 2.39% for whites and 2.20% for minorities from 1996 to 2007, and 2.88% and 2.47%, respectively, from 2005 to 2007. Numerous counties had no minority enrollment. The 2005-2007 enrollment rates for white and minority females was 4.04% and 3.59%, respectively, and for white and minority males was 1.74% and 1.36%, respectively. Counties with a medical school or NCI Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP)-affiliated practice had higher trial enrollment.

LIMITATIONS

We examined NCI trial accrual only - industry-sponsored and investigator-initiated trials were excluded; however, studies comprise the majority of all clinical trial participants. Delays in data availability may hinder the immediacy of population-based analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Model stability and consistency suggest that this system is effective for population-based enrollment surveillance. For North Carolina, it suggests a worsening disparity in minority trial enrollment, though our analyses elucidate targets for intervention. Regional enrollment variation suggests the importance of access to clinical research networks and infrastructure. Substantial gender differences merit further examination.