Informed consent for phase I studies: evaluation of quantity and quality of information provided to patients

Operationalising a real-time research ethics approach: supporting ethical mindfulness in agriculture-nutrition-health research in Malawi

BACKGROUND

There have been notable investments in large multi-partner research programmes across the agriculture-nutrition-health (ANH) nexus. These studies often involve human participants and commonly require research ethics review. These ANH studies are complex and can raise ethical issues that need pre-field work, ethical oversight and also need an embedded process that can identify, characterise and manage ethical issues as the research work develops, as such more embedded and dynamic ethics processes are needed. This work builds on notions of 'ethics in practice' by developing an approach to facilitate ethical reflection within large research programmes. This study explores the application of a novel 'real-time research ethics approach' (RTREA) and how this can support ethical mindfulness. This involves embedding ethical analysis and decision-making within research implementation, with a continuous dialogue between participants and researchers. The aim is to improve ethical responsiveness and participant experience, which in turn may ethically support adherence and retention. In this case study, a bioethics team (BT) was embedded in a community-based randomised, controlled trial conducted in rural Malawi, titled the 'Addressing Hidden Hunger with Agronomy'. To identify ethical issues, the researchers conducted ten focus group discussions, fourteen in-depth interviews with key informants, two workshops, observed two sensitisation and three activity meetings conducted by the trial team, and analysed fifteen reports from pre-trial to trial implementation.

RESULTS

The RTREA facilitated the identification of social and ethical concerns and made researchers aware of participants' 'lived research experience'. To address concerns and experiences, the BT worked with researchers to facilitate conversation spaces where social and ethical issues were discussed. Conversation spaces were designed to create partnerships and promote participatory methods to capture trial participants' (TPs) perspectives and experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of RTREA showed the value of real-time and continuous engagement between TPs and researchers. These real-time processes could be embedded to complement traditional ethical guidance and expert opinions. A deeper engagement appeared to support greater operationalising of principles of inclusion, empowerment, and participant autonomy and supported researchers 'ethical mindfulness' which in turn may support instrumental outcomes of high recruitment, retention, and adherence levels.

Evaluating the impact of the Patient Preference Assessment Tool on clinicians' recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Many groups recommend assessment of patient preferences particularly for patients with advanced, incurable cancer. We, therefore, developed the Patient Preference Assessment Tool (PPAT) to ascertain patient preferences in order to inform clinician recommendations and improve shared decision-making. The aim of this study is to assess the PPAT's impact on clinicians' strength of recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials.

METHODS

Clinicians recorded the strength of their recommendation on a Likert scale before viewing the patient's PPAT. After viewing the PPAT, the clinician discussed the clinical trial with the patient and then recorded the strength of recommendation again. If there was a change, the clinician noted the reason for the change: clinical findings or patient preference. Clinicians were interviewed about the acceptability of the tool. Our threshold for determining if a change in recommendation due to the PPAT was significant was 20%, given the multiple factors influencing a clinician's recommendation. We also noted the type of phase I conversation observed based on classifications defined in prior work-priming, treatment-options, trial logistics, consent.

RESULTS

N = 29. The strength of the clinicians' recommendations changed due to patient preferences in 7 of 29 (24%) of the conversations. The seven changes due to preferences were all in the 23 treatment-options conversations, for an impact rate of 30% in this type of conversation. 82% of clinicians found the PPAT useful.

CONCLUSION

The PPAT was impactful in an academic setting, exceeding our 20% impact threshold. This tool helps achieve the important goal of incorporating patient preferences into shared decision-making about clinical trials.

Bioethical reflexivity and requirements of valid consent: conceptual tools

Background

Despite existing international, regional and national guidance on how to obtain valid consent to health-related research, valid consent remains both a practical and normative challenge. This challenge persists despite additional evidence-based guidance obtained through conceptual and empirical research in specific localities on the same subject. The purpose of this paper is to provide an account for why, despite this guidance, this challenge still persist and suggest conceptual resources that can help make sense of this problem and eventually mitigate it’.

Main body

This paper argues that despite the existence of detailed official guidance and prior conceptual and empirical research on how to obtain valid consent, the question of ‘how to obtain and ascertain valid consent to participation in health-related research’ cannot always be fully answered by exclusive reference to pre-determined criteria/guidance provided by the guidelines and prior research’. To make intelligible why this is so and how this challenge could be allayed, the paper proposes six concepts. The first five of these are intended to account for the persistent seeming inadequacies of existing guidelines. These are fact-skepticism; guideline insufficiency; generality; context-neutrality and presumptiveness. As an outcome of these five, the paper analyzes and recommends a sixth, called bioethical reflexivity. Bioethical reflexivity is reckoned as a handy tool, skill, and attitude by which, in addition to guidance from context-specific research, the persisting challenges can be further eased.

Conclusions

Existing ethical guidelines on how to obtain valid consent to health-related research are what they ought to be – general, presumptive and context-neutral. This explains their seeming inadequacies whenever they are being applied in concrete situations. Hence, the challenges being encountered while obtaining valid consent can be significantly eased if we appreciate the guidelines’ nature and what this means for their implementation. There is also a need to cultivate reflexive mindsets plus the relevant skills needed to judiciously close the unavoidable gaps between guidelines and their application in concrete cases. This equally applies to the gaps which cannot be filled by reference to additional guidance from prior conceptual and empirical research in specific contexts.

Do Patients With Advanced Cancer Have the Ability to Make Informed Decisions for Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials?

Purpose Patients with advanced cancer (ACPs) participating in phase I clinical trials inadequately understand many elements of informed consent (IC); however, the prevalence and impact of cognitive impairment has not been described. Patients and Methods ACPs enrolled onto phase I trials underwent neuropsychological assessment to evaluate cognitive functioning (CF) covering the following domains: memory (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test), executive functioning (Trail Making Test B), language (Boston Naming Test-Short Version and Controlled Oral Word Association Test), attention (Trail Making Test A and Wechsler Adult Intelligenence Scale-IV Digit Span), comprehension (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV), and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function). Structured interviews evaluated IC and decisional capacity. Psychological measures included distress (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale) and depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II). Results One hundred eighteen ACPs on phase I trials were evaluated, with CF ranging from mild impairment to superior performance. Only 45% of ACPs recalled physician disclosure of the phase I trial purpose. The 50% of ACPs who correctly identified the phase I research purpose had greater CF compared with ACPs who did not, as revealed by the mean T scores for memory (37.2 ± 5.6 v 32.5 ± 5.1, respectively; P = .001), attention (29 ± 2.7 v 26.9 ± 2.4, respectively; P < .001), visual attention (35.2 ± 6.6 v 31.5 ± 6.2, respectively; P = .001), and executive function (38.9 ± 7.5 v 34 ± 7.1, respectively; P < .001). Older ACPs (≥ 60 years) were less likely to recall physician disclosure of phase I purpose than younger ACPs (30% v 70%, respectively; P = .02) and had measurable deficits in total memory (34.2 ± 5.0 v 37.3 ± 5.6, respectively; P = .002), attention (24.5 ± 2.6 v 28 ± 2.8, respectively; P < .001), and executive function (32.8 ± 7.3 v 36.4 ± 7.6, respectively; P = .01). Older ACPs, compared with younger ACPs, also had greater depression scores (10.6 ± 9.2 v 8.1 ± 5.2, respectively; P = .03) and lower quality-of-life scores (152 ± 29.6 v 167 ± 20, respectively; P = .03). After adjustment by age, no psychological or neuropsychological variable was further significantly associated with likelihood of purpose identification. Conclusion CF seems to play a role in ACP recall and comprehension of IC for early-phase clinical trials, especially among older ACPs.

Investigator Disclosure and Advanced Cancer Patient Understanding of Informed Consent and Prognosis in Phase I Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Advanced cancer patients (ACPs) who participate in phase I clinical trials often report a less-than-ideal understanding of the required elements of informed consent (IC) and unrealistic expectations for anticancer benefit and prognosis. We examined phase I clinical trial enrollment discussions and their associations with subsequent ACP understanding.

METHODS

Clinical encounters about enrollment in phase I trials between 101 ACPs and 29 oncologists (principal investigators [PIs] and fellows) at three US academic medical institutions were recorded. The Roter Interaction Analysis System was used for analysis. ACPs completed follow-up questionnaires to assess IC recall.

RESULTS

PIs disclosed the following phase I IC elements to ACPs in encounters: trial purpose in 40%; specific physical risks in 60%; potential specific medical benefits gained by trial participation (eg, disease stabilization) in 48.2%; and alternatives to phase I trial participation in 47.1%, with 1.1% of encounters containing palliative and 2.3% hospice information. PIs provided ACP-specific prognoses in 29.0% of encounters but used precise terms of death in only 4.7% and terminal in 1.2%. A significant association existed between PI disclosure of the trial purpose as dosage/toxicity, and ACPs subsequently correctly recalled trial purpose versus PIs who did not disclose it (85% v 13%; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Many oncologists provide incomplete disclosures about phase I trials to ACPs. When disclosure of certain elements of IC occurs, it seems to be associated with better recall, especially with regard to the research purpose of phase I trials.

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: development and preliminary evaluation of a measure of Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC)

BACKGROUND

Informed consent (IC) is an ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet current approaches evaluating participant understanding for IC during recruitment lack consistency. No validated measure has been identified that evaluates participant understanding for IC based on their contributions during consent interactions. This paper outlines the development and formative evaluation of the Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC) measure for application to recorded recruitment appointments. The PIC allows the evaluation of recruiter information provision and evidence of participant understanding.

METHODS

Published guidelines for IC were reviewed to identify potential items for inclusion. Seventeen purposively sampled trial recruitment appointments from three diverse trials were reviewed to identify the presence of items relevant to IC. A developmental version of the measure (DevPICv1) was drafted and applied to six further recruitment appointments from three further diverse trials to evaluate feasibility, validity, stability and inter-rater reliability. Findings guided revision of the measure (DevPICv2) which was applied to six further recruitment appointments as above.

RESULTS

DevPICv1 assessed recruiter information provision (detail and clarity assessed separately) and participant talk (detail and understanding assessed separately) over 20 parameters (or 23 parameters for three-arm trials). Initial application of the measure to six diverse recruitment appointments demonstrated promising stability and inter-rater reliability but a need to simplify the measure to shorten time for completion. The revised measure (DevPICv2) combined assessment of detail and clarity of recruiter information and detail and evidence of participant understanding into two single scales for application to 22 parameters or 25 parameters for three-arm trials. Application of DevPICv2 to six further diverse recruitment appointments showed considerable improvements in feasibility (e.g. time to complete) with good levels of stability (i.e. test-retest reliability) and inter-rater reliability maintained.

CONCLUSIONS

The DevPICv2 provides a measure for application to trial recruitment appointments to evaluate quality of recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding and participation during IC discussions. Initial evaluation shows promising feasibility, validity, reliability and ability to discriminate across a range of recruiter practice and evidence of participant understanding. More validation work is needed in new clinical trials to evaluate and refine the measure further.

Discussing molecular testing in oncology care: Comparing patient and physician information preferences

BACKGROUND

Molecular testing to inform treatment and clinical trial choices is now the standard of care for several types of cancer. However, no established guidelines exist for the type of information physicians should cover during discussions with the patient about the test or its results. The objectives of this study were to identify physician and patient preferences regarding information and who should communicate this information and how to inform guidelines for these conversations.

METHODS

Physicians and patients who participated in discussions regarding molecular testing were asked to choose 8 topics of most relevance out of a list of 18. The McNemar test was used to determine their top preferences. Patients were asked to identify what information they wanted to receive and who should inform them, and physicians were asked to identify the best aid to communication.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients identified 12 preferred topics: the benefits of testing (88%), how testing determines treatment (88%), implications for family (71%), whether a test indicates the seriousness of disease (68%), purpose of the test (64%), incidental findings (56%), explanation of cancer genetics (53%), how the test is done (46%), limitations (44%), explanation of biomarker (42%), risks (42%), and uninformative results (38%). Physicians added cost (59%). Patients preferred receiving information about molecular testing from their nurse or physician (85%), and physicians preferred using a pamphlet (67%) to augment communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The topics identified as important to discuss can inform future guidelines and can contribute to effective communication regarding molecular testing. Cancer 2017;123:1610-1616. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

". . . I've Gone Through This My Own Self, So I Practice What I Preach . . . "

There has not been enough study of the processes by which site staff help participating community members and potential participants to understand complicated concepts for HIV vaccine trials. This article describes strategies reported in six focus group discussions with Community Advisory Board members, educators, and consent counselors at an active HIV vaccine trial site in South Africa. Thematic analysis identified a considerable range of strategies, and findings suggest that such staff do not only try to promote understanding of critical information but also try to build trust in communicated information, to respect cultural differences, and to promote voluntariness. Findings also suggest occasional tensions between these implicit goals. Actual engagement and consent encounters at HIV vaccine trial sites should be observed, recorded, and analyzed; and the relationship between practices and valued outcomes should be assessed. These efforts may help to make consent-related encounters as "potent" as possible given finite resources.

Description of the types and content of phase 1 clinical trial consent conversations in practice

BACKGROUND OR AIMS

All agree that informed consent is a process, but past research has focused content analyses on post-consent or on one conversation in the consent series. Our aim was to identify and describe the content of different types of consent conversations.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of 38 adult oncology phase 1 consent conversations, which were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and qualitatively analyzed for type and content.

RESULTS

Four types of consent conversations were identified: (1) priming, (2) patient-centered options, (3) trial centered, and (4) decision made. The analysis provided a robust description of the content discussed in each type of conversation. Two themes, supportive care and prognosis, were rarely mentioned. Four themes clustered in the patient-centered (type 2) conversations: affirmation of honesty, comfort, progression, and offer of supportive care.

CONCLUSION

We identified and described four types of consent conversations. Our novel findings include (1) four different types of conversations with one (priming) not mentioned before and (2) a change of focus from describing the content of one phase 1 consent conversation to describing the content of different types. These in-depth descriptions provide the foundation for future research to determine whether the four types of conversations occur in sequence, thus describing the structure of the consent process and providing the basis for coaching interventions to alert physicians to the appropriate content for each type of conversation. A switch from a focus on one conversation to the types of conversations in the process may better align the consent conversations with the iterative process of shared decision making.

Motivations of Patients with Diabetes to Participate in Research

BACKGROUND

Research on the motivations of research participants has focused primarily on vulnerable populations at risk of exploitation, and there is little research on the motivations and reasons of general medical patients participating in research. Given a significant increase in research studies recruiting participants with diabetes, we sought to better understand the motivations of patients with diabetes considering a general medical research protocol.

METHODS

The analyses presented here compare the reasoning and willingness to participate in a hypothetical research study of medically ill subjects (patients with diabetes, n=51) with non-ill (n=57) subjects. Responses on the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR) were correlated with demographic variables and scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Short-Form-36 (SF-36).

RESULTS

Overall, 44% of the group with diabetes and 56% of the comparison group indicated a willingness to participate in the research study. The reasons diabetic and comparison groups offered for willingness or unwillingness to participate in research did not differ significantly. 75% mentioned reasons related to treatment, 63% altruism; none mentioned money. Of those patients with diabetes who would not participate in research, 94% cited risk, and 89% expressed an aversion to research.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that when research is not related to their diagnosis, persons with diabetes do not differ significantly from non-ill comparison subjects in their motivations to participate in research. Given the similarity of our subjects' motivations to those of other medically ill populations, it may be that investigators can now focus more closely on the decision-making characteristics of their patients involved in clinical research rather than their diagnoses.

Can consultation skills training change doctors' behaviour to increase involvement of patients in making decisions about standard treatment and clinical trials: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is required for both standard cancer treatments and experimental cancer treatments in a clinical trial. Effective and sensitive physician-patient communication about informed consent is difficult to achieve. Our aim was to train doctors in clear, collaborative and ethical communication about informed consent and evaluate the impact of training on doctor behaviour, stress and satisfaction.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Participants were 21 oncologists from 10 Australian/New Zealand (ANZ) centres and 41 oncologists from 10 Swiss/German/Austrian (SGA) centres. Oncologists were randomized to participate in a 1-day workshop or not. Patients were recruited before and after the training. Doctors were asked to submit 1-2 audiotaped consultations before and after training. Doctors completed outcome measures before and after completing the post-training cohort recruitment.

RESULTS

Ninety-five consultation interactions were audiotaped. Doctors strongly endorsed the training. ANZ intervention doctors demonstrated a significant increase in collaborative communication (P = 0.03). There was no effect of training on other doctor behaviours. Trained doctors did not demonstrate reduced stress and burnout. Patient outcomes are presented elsewhere.

CONCLUSIONS

Training can improve some aspects of the process of obtaining informed consent. Methods to increase the impact of training are required and may include longer training and more intensive follow-up.

Improving understanding of clinical trial procedures among low literacy populations: an intervention within a microbicide trial in Malawi

Background

The intervention reported in this paper was a follow up to an empirical study conducted in Malawi with the aim of assessing trial participants’ understanding of randomisation, double-blinding and placebo use. In the empirical study, the majority of respondents (61.1%; n=124) obtained low scores (lower than 75%) on understanding of all three concepts under study. Based on these findings, an intervention based on a narrative which included all three concepts and their personal implications was designed. The narrative used daily examples from the field of Agriculture because Malawi has an agro-based economy.

Methods

The intervention was tested using a sample of 36 women who had been identified as low scorers during the empirical study. The 36 low scorers were randomly assigned to control (n=18) and intervention arms (n=18). The control arm went through a session in which they were provided with standard informed consent information for the microbicide trial. The intervention arm went through a session in which they were provided with a narrative in ChiChewa, the local language, with the assistance of a power point presentation which included pictures as well as discussions on justification and personal implications of the concepts under study.

Results

The findings on the efficacy of the intervention suggest that the 3 scientific concepts and their personal implications can be understood by low literacy populations using simple language and everyday local examples. The findings also suggest that the intervention positively impacted on understanding of trial procedures under study, as 13 of the 18 women in the intervention arm, obtained high scores (above 75%) during the post intervention assessment and none of the 18 in the control arm obtained a high score. Using Fischer’s exact test, it was confirmed that the effect of the intervention on understanding of the three procedures was statistically significant (p=0.0001).

Conclusions

Potential trial participants can be assisted to understand key clinical trial procedures, their justification and personal implications by using innovative tailored local narratives.

Health numeracy and understanding of risk among older American Indians and Alaska Natives

American Indian and Alaska Native people suffer extreme health disparities and remain underrepresented in health research. This population needs adequate numeracy skills to make informed decisions about health care and research participation, yet little is known about their numeracy skills. Participants were 91 American Indian and Alaska Native elders who completed an anonymous survey that measured numeracy and the correlation between framing of risk and comprehension of risk. The authors measured numeracy by a previously developed 3-item scale that assessed basic probability skills and the ability to manipulate percentages and proportions. Risk comprehension was measured by 3 items on treatment benefits, which were variously framed in terms of relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, and number needed to treat. Framing in terms of relative risk was associated with higher odds of correct interpretation compared to absolute risk (OR=1.8, 95% CI=1.2-2.9) and number needed to treat (OR=2.0, 95% CI=1.2-3.5). This association persisted after adjusting for covariates, including baseline numeracy skills. Our results underscore the need for clinicians to consider how health information is framed and to check carefully for understanding when communicating risk information to patients.

Measuring the process and quality of informed consent for clinical research: development and testing

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To develop and assess the reliability and validity of an observational instrument, the Process and Quality of Informed Consent (P-QIC).

DESIGN

A pilot study of the psychometrics of a tool designed to measure the quality and process of the informed consent encounter in clinical research. The study used professionally filmed, simulated consent encounters designed to vary in process and quality.

SETTING

A major urban teaching hospital in the northeastern region of the United States.

SAMPLE

63 students enrolled in health-related programs participated in psychometric testing, 16 students participated in test-retest reliability, and 5 investigator-participant dyads were observed for the actual consent encounters.

METHODS

For reliability and validity testing, students watched and rated videotaped simulations of four consent encounters intentionally varied in process and content and rated them with the proposed instrument. Test-retest reliability was established by raters watching the videotaped simulations twice. Inter-rater reliability was demonstrated by two simultaneous but independent raters observing an actual consent encounter.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

The essential elements of information and communication for informed consent.

FINDINGS

The initial testing of the P-QIC demonstrated reliable and valid psychometric properties in both the simulated standardized consent encounters and actual consent encounters in the hospital setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The P-QIC is an easy-to-use observational tool that provides a quick assessment of the areas of strength and areas that need improvement in a consent encounter. It can be used in the initial trainings of new investigators or consent administrators and in ongoing programs of improvement for informed consent.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

The development of a validated observational instrument will allow investigators to assess the consent process more accurately and evaluate strategies designed to improve it.

Personal experiences of taking part in clinical trials - a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate people's experiences of and attitudes to participation in clinical trials.

METHODS

42 in-depth qualitative interviews, covering different types of trial and intervention, analysed thematically using a modified grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Many participants argued for a right to participate in research. This may be partly because personal benefit was a common primary motivation for taking part - but the benefits cited were not only personal health outcomes. Whilst most were satisfied with information received, some felt it was too complex. Gaps in understanding were evident, especially around randomisation, but trust in trial staff was high. Desire for feedback of trial results was common.

CONCLUSION

Unintended consequences may arise from efforts to give full information and challenge therapeutic misconceptions. People wanted 'enough' information to help them decide, but their definition of 'enough', and the relative importance of written information versus discussion/advice from trusted professionals, varied by individual. In seeking to minimise misunderstanding we stress uncertainty and risk but have perhaps lost sight of the value people derive from trial participation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Better information on trial availability, shorter trial leaflets and greater emphasis on face-to-face discussion are suggested. Recruitment literature could appeal to a wider range of benefits.

What oncologists believe they said and what patients believe they heard: an analysis of phase I trial discussions

PURPOSE; Evaluation of the communication and informed consent process in phase I clinical trial interviews to provide authentic, practice-based content for inclusion in a communication skills training intervention for health care professionals.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventeen oncologists and 52 patients from five United Kingdom cancer centers consented to recording of phase I trial discussions. Following each consultation, clinicians completed questionnaires indicating areas they felt they had discussed, and researchers conducted semistructured interviews with patients examining their recall and understanding. Patients and oncologists also completed the Life Orientation Test-Revised questionnaire, measuring predisposition toward optimism. Independent researchers coded the consultations identifying discussion of key information areas and how well this was done. Observed levels of agreement were analyzed for each consultation between oncologist-coder, oncologist-patient, and patient-coder pairs.

RESULTS

In several key areas, information was either missing or had been explained but was interpreted incorrectly by patients. Discussion of prognosis was a frequent omission, with patients and coders significantly more likely to agree that oncologists had not discussed it (odds, 4.8; P < .001). In contrast, coders and oncologists were more likely to agree that alternate care plans to phase I trial entry had been explained (odds, 2.5; P = .023).

CONCLUSION

These data indicate that fundamental components of communication and information sharing about phase I trial participation are often missing from interviews. Important omissions included discussion of prognosis and ensuring patient understanding about supportive care. These findings will inform educational initiatives to assist communication about phase I trials.

The contents and readability of informed consent forms for oncology clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare the quality of informed consent forms (ICF) for different trial phases, funding sources, oncology subspecialties, disease settings, and intervention modalities.

METHODS

ICF for prospectively conducted clinical trials were examined for their descriptions of benefits and risks, study alternatives, voluntary participation, and confidentiality. Readability was assessed with Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level.

RESULTS

Among 262 evaluable trials, ICF contained an average of 3982 words, 379 sentences, and 10.5 pages. The mean FRE score and Reading Grade Level were 61.2 and 7.4, respectively. All ICF explicitly stated that the intervention was investigational. Only 2 (1%) promised direct personal benefits, 16 (6%) suggested the chance of cure or prolonged survival, and 89 (34%) indicated a potential for tumor response. Conversely, 239 (91%) mentioned the risk of serious harms, 217 (83%) admitted that some side effects could be unknown or unpredictable, and 126 (48%) reported hospitalization or death as a possibility. Alternatives to participation, right to withdraw from study, and data confidentiality were addressed in 242 (92%), 254 (97%), and 260 (99%) ICF, respectively. Hematology, industry-funded, metastatic, and systemic therapy trials were most likely to highlight major risks (P < 0.05). Readability was better in phase I trials and in studies, which were performed by medical oncologists, sponsored by governmental agencies, conducted in the metastatic setting, and involved systemic therapy (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

ICF had acceptable readability and provided a realistic overview of the benefits and risks of clinical trials, but the potential for hospitalization or fatality was underreported.

Seeking informed consent to Phase I cancer clinical trials: identifying oncologists' communication strategies

PURPOSE

Phase I clinical trials are the gateway to effective new cancer treatments. Many physicians have difficulty when discussing Phase I clinical trials. Research demonstrates evidence of suboptimal communication. Little is known about communication strategies used by oncologists when recruiting patients for Phase I trials. We analyzed audio recorded Phase I consultations to identify oncologists' communication strategies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Subjects were consecutive cancer patients from six medical oncologists attending one of three outpatient clinics at a major Cancer Center in the United States. Sixteen patients signed informed consent for audio recording of their consultations in which a Phase I study was discussed. These were transcribed in full and analyzed to identify communication strategies.

RESULTS

Six communication themes emerged from the analysis: (1) orienting, (2) educating patients, (3) describing uncertainty and prognosis, (4) persuading, (5) decision making, and (6) making a treatment recommendation. As expected, although there was some common ground between communication in Phase I and the Phase II and III settings, there were distinct differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologists used persuasive communication, made explicit recommendations, or implicitly expressed a treatment preference and were choice limiting. This highlights the complexity of discussing Phase I trials and the need to develop strategies to aid oncologists and patients in these difficult conversations. Patient centered communication that values patient preferences while preserving the oncologist's agenda can be a helpful approach to these discussions.

It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard methodology for determining effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Poor recruitment to RCTs can threaten external validity and waste resources. An inherent tension exists between safeguarding informed decision-making by participants and maximising numbers enrolled. This study investigated what occurs during informed consent appointments in an ongoing multi-centre RCT in the UK. Objectives were to investigate: 1] how study staff presented study information to participants; 2] what evidence emerged as to how well-informed participants were when proceeding to randomisation or treatment selection; and 3] what aspects of the communication process may facilitate improvements in providing evidence of informed consent. Qualitative analysis of a purposive sample of 23 recruitment appointments from three study centres and involving several recruitment staff applied techniques of thematic, content and conversation analysis (CA). Thematic analysis and CA revealed variation in appointment content and structure. Appointments were mostly recruiter-led or participant-led, and this structure was associated with what evidence emerged as to how participants understood information provided and whether they were in equipoise. Participant-led appointments provided this evidence more consistently. Detailed CA identified communication techniques which, when employed by recruiters, provided evidence as to how participants understood the choices before them. Strategic use of open questions, pauses and ceding the floor in the interaction facilitated detailed and systematic exploration of each participant's concerns and position regarding equipoise. We conclude that the current focus on content to be provided to achieve informed consent should be broadened to encompass consideration of how information is best conveyed to potential participants. A model of tailored information provision using the communication techniques identified and centred on eliciting and addressing participants' concerns is proposed. Use of these techniques is necessary to make potential participants' understanding of key issues and their position regarding equipoise explicit in order to facilitate truly informed consent.

Interventions for improving communication with children and adolescents about their cancer

BACKGROUND

Communication with children and adolescents with cancer about their disease and treatment and the implications of these is an important aspect of good quality care. It is often poorly performed in practice. Various interventions have been developed that aim to enhance communication involving children or adolescents with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for improving communication with children and/or adolescents about their cancer, its treatment and their implications, updating the 2003 version of this review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In April 2006 we updated searches of the following sources: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, issue 1 2006); MEDLINE (Ovid), (2003 to March week 5 2006); EMBASE (Ovid) (2003 to 2006 week 13); PsycINFO (Ovid) (2003 to March week 5 2006); CINAHL (Ovid) (2003 to March week 5 2006); ERIC (CSA) (earliest to 2006); Sociological Abstracts (CSA) (earliest to 2006); Dissertation Abstracts: (2002 to 6 April 2006).In 2003 we conducted searches of CENTRAL; MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Sociological Abstracts and Dissertation Abstracts.For the initial (2001) publication of this review we also searched the following databases: PsycLIT; Cancerlit; Sociofile; Health Management Information Consortium; ASSIA; LISA; PAIS; Information Science Abstracts; JICST; Pascal; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts; Mental Health Abstracts; AMED; MANTIS.We also searched the bibliographies of studies assessed for inclusion, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, and before and after studies, evaluating the effects of interventions for improving communication with children and/or adolescents about their cancer, treatment and related issues.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data relating to the interventions, populations and outcomes studied and the design and methodological quality of included studies were extracted by one review author and checked by another review author. We present a narrative summary of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

One new study met the criteria for inclusion; in total we have included ten studies involving 438 participants. Studies were diverse in terms of the interventions evaluated, study designs used, types of people who participated and the outcomes measured.One study of a computer-assisted education programme reported improvements in knowledge and understanding about blood counts and cancer symptoms. One study of a CD-ROM about leukaemia reported an improvement in children's feelings of control over their health. One study of art therapy as support for children during painful procedures reported an increase in positive, collaborative behaviour. Two out of two studies of school reintegration programs reported improvements in some aspects of psychosocial wellbeing (one in anxiety and one in depression), social wellbeing (two in social competence and one in social support) and behavioural problems; and one reported improvements in physical competence. One newly-identified study of a multifaceted interactive intervention reported a reduction in distress (as measured by heart rate) related to radiation therapy.Two studies of group therapy, one of planned play and story telling, and one of a self-care coping intervention, found no significant effects on the psychological or clinical outcomes measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to enhance communication involving children and adolescents with cancer have not been widely or rigorously assessed. The weak evidence that exists suggests that some children and adolescents with cancer may derive some benefit from specific information-giving programs, from support before and during particular procedures, and from interventions that aim to facilitate their reintegration into school and social activities. More research is needed to investigate the effects of these and other related interventions.

Seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials; evaluating the efficacy of doctor communication skills training

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trials have come to be regarded as the gold standard for treatment evaluation. However, many doctors and their patients experience difficulties when discussing trial participation, leading to poor accrual to trials and questionable quality of informed consent. We have previously developed a communication skills training program based on a typology for ethical communication about Phase II and III clinical trials within four categories. The training program consisted of a 1 day experiential workshop that included didactic teaching, exemplary video and role play. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the communication skills training workshop.

METHOD

Oncologists were recruited from three major teaching hospitals conducting oncology outpatient clinics in three Australian capital cities. Ten oncologists and 90 of their adult cancer patients who were eligible for a Phase II or III clinical trial participated. Ninety informed consent consultations were audiotaped before (n = 59) and after (n = 31) training, and fully transcribed. The presence or absence of each domain component was coded and these were summed within categories. A coding manual was produced which enabled standardization of the coding procedure. Patients completed questionnaires before and after the consultation, and doctors completed a short measure of satisfaction after the consultation.

RESULTS

Doctors increased their use of some aspects of shared decision-making behavior (t(87) = -1.945, p = 0.05) and described some aspects of essential ethical/clinical information more commonly. In addition they used less coercive behaviors (z = -1.976, p = 0.048). However, they did not provide more clinical information or structure their consultations in the recommended fashion. Patients in the post-training cohort reported more positive attitudes to clinical trials, but other outcomes were not affected by the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This short training programme demonstrated limited success in improving the oncologist's communication skills when gaining informed consent. A larger randomized controlled trial of extended training is now underway.

Patients' Decision-Making Process Regarding Participation in Phase I Oncology Research

Purpose

This study assesses the decision-making process of patients enrolling in phase I oncology studies.

Patients and Methods

Participants were eligible if they had consented to participate in a phase I cancer study at one of five cancer centers, understood English, and were older than 18 years. Trained interviewers conducted structured in-person interviews.

Results

Of the 163 participants, 88% were white, 96% had health insurance, and 51% were college graduates or post graduates. Overall, 81% were aware of hospice, but only 6% had seriously considered hospice for themselves; 84% were aware of palliative care and 10% seriously considered it for themselves; and 7% considered getting no treatment at all. Overall, 75% reported moderate or a lot of pressure to participate in the phase I study because their cancer was growing, whereas 7% reported such pressure from the study investigators and 9% felt such pressure from their families. For 63% of patients, the most important information for decision making was that the phase I drug killed cancer cells; only 12% reported that the adverse effects of the drug(s) was the most useful information. More than 90% of patients said they would still participate in the study even if the experimental drug caused serious adverse effects, including a 10% chance of dying.

Conclusion

Patients are aware of many alternatives to phase I studies, but do not seriously consider them. Very few experience pressure from family or researchers to participate in research. Their main goal is to fight their cancer, and almost no adverse effect, including death, would dissuade them from enrolling.

Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature

Phase 1 (P1) trials are vital to the development of cancer treatments; however, the patients involved in these trials are unlikely to receive any therapeutic benefit, and there are significant possibilities that they will experience serious side effects. Ethical requirements stipulate that patients must be adequately informed before they consent to participate in P1 trials. This review focuses on studies that have measured patient comprehension of information given during the informed consent process of P1 cancer trials. Patients consenting to participate in P1 trials currently have a limited understanding of trial purpose, an unrealistic expectation of the benefits and risks associated with trial participation and a questionable appreciation of their right to abstain or withdraw. Health care professionals recruiting to P1 trials need clear and practical guidelines and training packages designed to ensure that all details of P1 trials are communicated effectively to eligible patients.

Understanding of an aggregate probability statement by patients who are offered participation in Phase I clinical trials

BACKGROUND

There is concern that patients with poor numeracy may have difficulty understanding the information necessary to make informed treatment decisions. The authors sought to characterize a special form of numeracy among patients with advanced cancer who were offered participation in Phase I oncology clinical trials.

METHODS

Surveys were administered to 328 cancer patients who were considering Phase I trials. Their frequency-type numeracy was assessed using a multiple-choice question involving a hypothetical scenario in which a physician stated that an experimental treatment would control cancer in "40% of cases like yours." In univariate and multivariable analyses, patient characteristics that were associated with better numeracy were identified.

RESULTS

The correct frequency-type interpretation was selected by 72% of respondents. Fourteen percent of respondents incorrectly selected a belief-type answer, "The doctor is 40% confident that the treatment will control my cancer." In a multivariable model, patients who answered incorrectly tended to have less formal education and less experience with experimental therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Because the misunderstandings some patients demonstrated may influence their treatment decision making adversely, it is critical to identify such patients and to give them special consideration when communicating information about potential risks and benefits of treatment.

Seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials:

Clinical trials have come to be regarded as the gold standard for treatment evaluation. However, many doctors and their patients experience difficulties when discussing trials, leading to poor accrual to trials and questionable quality of informed consent. We have previously developed a typology for ethical communication about Phase II and III clinical trials within four domains: (a) shared decision making, (b) sequencing information, (c) type and clarity of information, and (d) disclosure/coercion. The aim of this study was to compare current clinical practice when seeking informed consent with this typology. Fifty-nine consultations in which 10 participating oncologists sought informed consent were audiotaped. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using a coding system to (a) identify the presence or absence of aspects of the four domains and (b) rate the quality of aspects of two domains: (i) shared decision-making and (ii) type and clarity of information. Oncologists rarely addressed aspects of shared decision-making, other than offering to delay a treatment decision (78%). Moreover, many of these discussions scored poorly with respect to ideal content. The oncologists were rarely consistent with the sequence of information provision. A general rationale for randomising was only described in 46% of consultations. In almost one third of the consultations (28.8%) doctors made implicit statements favouring one option over another, either standard or clinical trial treatment. Doctors complied with some but not other aspects of a standard procedure for discussing clinical trials. This reflects the difficulty inherent in seeking ethical informed consent and the need for communication skills training for oncologists.

Developing ethical strategies to assist oncologists in seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials

Randomised clinical trials have come to be regarded as the gold standard in treatment evaluation. However, many doctors see the discussion of a clinical trial as an intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship and find these discussions difficult to initiate. Detailed informed consent is now a requirement of patient participation in trials; however, it is known that patients commonly fail to understand and recall the information conveyed. These difficulties for doctors and patients raise questions about the ethical integrity of the informed consent process. In this study, we have developed a set of communication strategies underpinned by ethical, linguistic and psychological theory, designed to assist doctors in this difficult task. Initially, audiotape transcripts of 26 consultations in which 10 medical oncologists invited patients to participate in clinical trials were analysed by expert ethicists, linguists, oncologists and psychologists, using rigorous qualitative methodology. A subset of seven of these was subjected to detailed linguistic analysis. A strategies document was developed to address themes which emerged from these analyses. This document was presented to relevant expert stakeholders. Their feedback was incorporated into the final document. Four themes emerged from the analysis; (a) shared decision-making, (b) the sequence of moves in the consultation, (c) the type and clarity of the information provided and (d) disclosure of controversial information and coercion. Detailed strategies were developed to assist doctors to communicate in these areas. We have developed a set of ethical strategies which may assist health professionals in this difficult area. A training package based on these strategies is currently being evaluated in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Understanding patient decisions about clinical trials and the associated communication process: a preliminary report

BACKGROUND

Although patient participation in clinical trials is vital to cancer research, the rate of enrollment in such trials is not adequate for advancing scientific knowledge. Relatively little is known about why patients enroll in such trials. This affects the training and education programs designed to increase such participation.

METHODS

A model of the accrual process, which focuses on communication among the physician, patient, and family members is described. Then a system for observing and recording these interactions is presented.

RESULTS, CONCLUSION

Data are presented that suggest using the system to test the conceptual model can improve our understanding of patient decisions about clinical trials and hold out the potential for improving provider training.

Interventions for improving communication with children and adolescents about their cancer

BACKGROUND

Communication with children and adolescents with cancer about their disease and treatment and the implications of these is an important aspect of good quality care. It is often poorly performed in practice. Various interventions have been developed that aim to enhance communication involving children or adolescents with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of interventions to enhance communication with children and/or adolescents about their cancer, its treatment and their implications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2003; MEDLINE (1966 to January week 2 2003); EMBASE (1985 to 2003 week 4); CINAHL (1982 to December week 4 2002); Dissertation Abstracts (1861 to January 2003); ERIC (1966 to January 2003); PsycINFO (1985 to January week 4 2003); Sociological Abstracts (1963 to January 2003).For the initial (2001) publication of this review we also searched the following databases: PsycLIT; Cancerlit;; Sociofile; Health Management Information Consortium; ASSIA; LISA; PAIS; Information Science Abstracts; JICST; Pascal; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts; Mental Health Abstracts; AMED; MANTIS. We also searched the bibliographies of studies assessed for inclusion, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials and before and after studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to enhance communication with children and/or adolescents about their cancer, treatment and related issues.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data relating to the interventions, populations and outcomes studied and the design and methodological quality of included studies were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A narrative summary of the results is presented.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies met the criteria for inclusion. They were diverse in terms of the interventions evaluated, study designs used, types of people who participated and the outcomes measured. One study of a computer-assisted education programme reported improvements in knowledge and understanding about blood counts and cancer symptoms. One study of a CD-ROM about leukemia reported an improvement in children's feelings of control over their health. One study of art therapy as support for children during painful procedures reported an increase in positive, collaborative behaviour. Two out of two studies of school reintegration programs reported improvements in some aspects of psychosocial wellbeing (one in anxiety and one in depression), social wellbeing (two in social competence and one in social support) and behavioural problems; and one reported improvements in physical competence.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to enhance communication involving children and adolescents with cancer have not been widely or rigorously assessed. The weak evidence that exists suggests that some children and adolescents with cancer may derive some benefit from specific information-giving programs and from interventions that aim to facilitate their reintegration into school and social activities. More research is needed to investigate the effects of these and other related interventions.

Study of the media's potential influence on prospective research participants' understanding of and motivations for participation in a high-profile phase I trial

PURPOSE

To describe prospective participants' initial source of information about, understanding of, and motivation to participate in a phase I clinical trial of the antiangiogenesis agent human recombinant endostatin.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We surveyed 100 of 130 persons referred to the endostatin trial between October 1999 and November 2000 and analyzed media coverage of the agent from 1997 to 2000.

RESULTS

Forty-seven percent of survey respondents first heard about the trial from media reports. Fifty-one percent of these subsequently contacted their physicians. Thirty-three percent of respondents correctly understood the purpose of the trial. Seventy-nine respondents were interviewed before they met trial investigators to discuss the trial. Of these, those who first heard about endostatin from the media were five times more likely to understand correctly the trial's purpose than those who first heard from other sources. Seventy-four percent (70 of 95) of respondents cited hope for personal benefit as the main reason for their willingness to enroll. Those who first heard about endostatin from the media were no more motivated by hope of personal benefit (77%) than those who first heard from other sources (71%) (P =.46). Ninety-nine percent of all respondents cited "joining the study gives me hope" as a contributing factor in their decision making about the trial.

CONCLUSION

Media coverage prompted prospective participants to contact their physicians but did not seem to hinder understanding nor could it be shown to heighten their hope for personal benefit.

Evaluation of an information booklet for patients considering participation in phase I clinical trials in cancer

Phase I trials in cancer patients, although essential, are a difficult field of clinical research. A particularly challenging area for all members of the clinical research team is that concerned with information-giving and informed consent leading to patient participation in the trial. An information booklet for patients was written in an attempt to address some of those issues, with the overall aim of improving the informed consent process and influencing patient decision-making. Questions covered in the booklet include: What is a phase I trial? Who can take part? Are there any side-effects or risks involved? What if I say no? The booklet was given to patients prior to consent. On the first day of receiving treatment they were given a questionnaire to evaluate the usefulness and acceptability of the booklet. The results showed the booklet to be generally well accepted by patients and the majority of them perceived the content and volume of information to be appropriate. The booklet did support patient decision-making and the evaluation showed that the optimal time for patients to receive it was prior to the signing of a consent form. Minor amendments have been made to the booklet, which is now given routinely to all patients at the cancer centre who are considering participation in a phase I trial, and is a valuable addition to the informed consent process.

Informed consent and decision-making: patients' experiences of the process of recruitment to phases I and II anti-cancer drug trials

This paper presents an examination of the process of recruitment in cancer clinical trials. This research was undertaken as part of a larger study which sought to assess the psychosocial impact of participation in phases I and II anti-cancer drug trials from the patient's perspective. Through a combination of in-depth interviews with 55 patients who were offered participation in a clinical trial, and reading ease assessments of the written information they were given, patients' experiences of recruitment to the trial and their perceptions of the informed consent process were obtained. The results indicate that patients decisions may be influenced by the way information was presented to them verbally and that the written information was difficult for them to understand. This aspect of the research identified the powerful influence of the verbal consultation when seeking consent for trial involvement, the lack of understanding patients had of what they were taking part in and the need to address the readability of the written information with which they are provided.

The association between treatment-specific optimism and depressive symptomatology in patients enrolled in a Phase I cancer clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Previous research has found that cancer patients often overestimate the likelihood that they will achieve a positive response in Phase I trials. However, maintaining optimistic expectations may help patients cope with a poor prognosis and uncertain outcome. The authors prospectively examined the association between treatment-specific optimism and mental health among patients participating in a Phase I/b trial.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and 22 patients with metastatic melanoma completed an assessment battery at the beginning of treatment and 3 weeks later, on the final day of treatment. Patients completed measures of treatment-specific optimism (e.g., beliefs regarding the treatment working), depressive symptomatology, mood disturbance, and overall distress.

RESULTS

The majority of patients believed that the treatment would either cure them (87%) or stop cancer progression (85%). Regression analyses revealed that the level of treatment-specific optimism (e.g., "The treatment I am receiving may cure me") was associated negatively with baseline measures of depressive symptoms (P < 0.006), mood disturbance (P < 0.001), and symptoms of distress (P < 0.0001) after controlling for age, number of metastases, and time since diagnosis. Patients with symptoms of clinical depression at baseline reported significantly lower levels of treatment-specific optimism than patients without symptoms (P < 0.03). Treatment-specific optimism also was associated negatively with symptoms of depression at the end of treatment (P < 0.003), controlling for symptoms of depression at the beginning of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study suggest that high levels of treatment-specific optimism are associated with better mental health outcomes at both the beginning and end of treatment.

Coping with new treatments for cancer: a feasibility study of daily diary measures

This article describes a study of the feasibility and value of using daily diary measures to assess coping, adjustment and symptoms in patients participating in phase I clinical trials of new anticancer drugs. Ten patients (six women, four men) with advanced metastatic cancer were studied during a four-week phase I trial. Measures of psychological well-being, mental adjustment and symptoms were determined prior to treatment, and participants also completed daily ratings of psychological coping responses, mood and symptoms. Completion rates for diaries were high, and the amount of missing data averaged only 3.2% per patient. Overall, the most frequently endorsed coping responses were 'acceptance' and 'positive reinterpretation and growth'. There were systematic variations in coping by seeking social support across the trial, with more frequent use during phases of hospitalisation. Idiosyncratic fluctuations in patterns of coping were also observed. Positive daily mood was greater among patients who coped by ignoring their condition, and was also correlated with fighting spirit. Daily symptoms were inversely associated with positive mood and with fighting spirit. It is concluded that the daily diary approach is feasible, and may help to increase understanding of the experience of patients taking part in experimental anticancer drug trials.

Ethical issues in the development of new agents

In the early drug development process for cancer therapy, several ethical dilemmas result from the use of cancer patients with advanced disease as the subjects of research in clinical trials studying agents of unknown toxicity and/or efficacy. Although several accepted ethical principles guide the behavior of involved physicians and investigators, many of these principles are allowed to be violated in order to achieve the overall goal of clinical research in improving medical care for future patients. Informed consent has been a process viewed by many as a mechanism which protects potentially vulnerable patients from harm in the clinical trial process. However, the ability of the traditionally regulated process of obtaining informed consent for clinical research may be inadequate to ensure appropriate understanding of the purposes and the goals of early clinical trial research by potentially vulnerable advanced cancer patients. This creates further dilemmas with regard to physician-investigator and patient-subject communications. In the setting of phase I trials, where the specific goal of the research is to obtain toxicity information regarding a new potential anticancer agent, many heightened ethical conflicts are present. The fact that patients do not participate in these studies as a result of altruism, and that their main goals of participation are intensely therapeutic, create issues that may be in direct conflict with the research purpose of phase I trials. As well, the presence of therapeutic intentions on the part of involved physician-investigators creates challenging issues when one realizes the very low likelihood of benefit for individual patients participating in these studies. Within the phase II setting, the statistical constraints placed on new drug trials and, again, the low likelihood of benefit for participating-subjects, also creates challenging dilemmas. These statistical requirements may be in direct conflict with involved clinicians' attitudes and beliefs regarding potential efficacy of an agent in this setting. As well, these issues become problematic when thinking about the desired structure and outcome for informed consent in phase II anticancer trials. The ability to conduct clinical research on advanced cancer patients using agents of unknown efficacy and toxicity is a daunting privilege granted to physicians and accompanying institutions. The weight of this privilege should not be underestimated, and involved physician-investigators should be aware of the significant ethical challenges involved in appropriately and successfully conducting this form of research.

Proposing phase I studies: patients', relatives', nurses' and specialists' perceptions

PURPOSE

As of now the primary objective of studies on informed consent in phase I trials has been to assess patients' expectations and reasons for participation. We have previously shown that the quantity of information provided through a procedure of subsequent oral interviews with patients was adequate while the attention paid by the physician to the emotional needs and concerns of patients was not. We wanted therefore to assess and compare the perceptions of the information provided about the investigational study of patients, relatives, the research nurse and the investigator responsible for the phase I trial and the impact this information had on the patients' level of anxiety and depression.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The participation to a phase I study was proposed to patients through two subsequent interviews, the latter attended also by patients' relatives, the research nurse and the investigator coordinating the phase I trial. After the second interview, attendees were requested to complete a questionnaire assessing the principal reason for participating in the study and the informative, emotional and interactive dimension of the information. Patients were also requested to complete the Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale before and after the second interview.

RESULTS

The completed questionnaires of 31 of 42 patients were retrieved and analysed. The possibility to benefit from the study was indicated as the main reason for participating by 59% of the patients while it was judged to be the case in 78% and 86% of the patients by the nurse and the investigator, respectively. The information was judged to be clear and sufficient in almost all cases by all attendees, while the investigator judged that a lower percentage of patients felt at ease and could express their main worries during the interview, had been helped and were less worried after it than it was judged by the nurse and the relatives. Patients' state of anxiety and depression was not adversely affected by the information provided.

CONCLUSIONS

Informing patients on the option of receiving an investigational treatment within a phase I study is feasible and can be done in a way felt appropriate by patients and relatives, nursing and medical professionals. Providing information in an appropriate manner does not increase patients' anxiety and depression. Divergence between the aims and interests of the investigators and patients might explain the difference in the evaluation of physician, a problem which could perhaps be partially overcome by the application of innovative phase I designs.

Psychiatric research ethics: an overview of evolving guidelines and current ethical dilemmas in the study of mental illness

The field of psychiatry has an opportunity to construct a more refined, perhaps more enduring understanding of the ethical basis of mental illness research. The aim of this paper is to help advance this understanding by 1) tracing the evolution of the emerging ethic for biomedical experimentation, including recent recommendations of the President's National Bioethics Advisory Commission, and 2) reviewing data and concepts related to compelling ethical questions now faced in the study of mental disorders. Empirical findings on informed consent, the ethical safeguards of institutional review and surrogate decision making, and the relationship between scientific and ethical imperatives are outlined. Psychiatric researchers will increasingly be called upon to justify their scientific approaches and to seek ways of safeguarding the well-being of people with mental illness who participate in experiments. Most importantly, psychiatric investigators will need to demonstrate their appreciation and respect for ethical dimensions of investigation with special populations. Further empirical study and greater sophistication with respect to the distinct ethical issues in psychiatric research are needed. Although such measures present many challenges, they should not interfere with progress in neuropsychiatric science so long as researchers in our field seek to guide the process of reflection and implementation.

Informed consent for clinical trials: in search of the "best" method

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on comparisons between different methods of obtaining informed consent for clinical trials.

DESIGN

Eight hundred and twelve articles were traced, in the process of conducting a systematic review of the ethics of clinical trials, by searching a number of sources: bibliographic databases (Medline, Psychlit and BIDS science and social science indices), hand searches, personal contacts, an original collection and a systematic follow-up of reference lists. Fourteen research reports were found which provided comparative data on different methods of obtaining informed consent. Eleven of these used a randomised design. Studies were classified according to three outcome measures (anxiety, consent rate and understanding).

RESULTS

The results of the various studies suggest that giving people more information and more time to reflect tends to be associated with a lower consent rate. There seems to be an optimal level of information about side-effects such that patients are not overburdened by detail, while grasping the most important risks. More information in general is associated with greater awareness of the research nature of the trial, voluntariness of participation, right to withdraw and (available) alternative treatments. This result does not, however, extend to explanations of the concept of randomisation on which the literature is contradictory--sometimes more information is associated with increased understanding of the concept and sometimes it is not. Although divulging less information seems to be associated with less anxiety, there is evidence of an interaction with knowledge--high levels of knowledge are significantly associated with less anxiety, irrespective of consent method. The more that patients know before they are invited to participate in a trial, the better equipped they are to cope with the informed consent procedure.

CONCLUSION

There is some evidence to suggest that there is an optimal amount of information which enhances patient understanding and which might, in turn, reduce anxiety. However. the studies were not altogether conclusive. More work needs to be carried out, especially on public understanding of science and on how different ways of explaining scientific concepts affect that understanding.

The ethical basis of psychiatric research: conceptual issues and empirical findings

The study objective was to clarify the ethical basis of psychiatric research by outlining conceptual issues and empirical findings related to the ethics of human experimentation. A systematic review of scholarly and empirical literature covering three decades was performed. The ethics of human research has come to be understood in relation to the principles of respect for persons, beneficence, justice, and the ideal of informed consent. Subjects who cannot fully participate in informed-consent processes are especially vulnerable to exploitation. Current dilemmas stem from insufficient attention to the vulnerabilities of mentally ill research participants, problems in applying ethical concepts and guidelines to psychiatric research, and claims of research misconduct. Empirical studies indicate that (1) psychiatric symptoms significantly affect informed consent, (2) psychiatric patients may possess certain strengths with respect to research involvement, (3) proxy decision-making is problematic, (4) informed consent is also difficult to attain with the medically ill and others, (5) patients are motivated to participate in research by the hope of personal benefit, (6) ethical aspects of research are poorly documented, and (7) institutional review processes may not be adequate to protect vulnerable subjects. Psychiatric research can be performed ethically, according to standards set throughout the biomedical and behavioral sciences, so long as researchers and institutions are respectful of special ethical issues in human experimentation and strive to include vulnerable study participants fully in research decisions. However, many gaps in the empirical literature exist regarding the specific nature and implementation of ethics principles in psychiatric research. Efforts to advance both science and ethics, including the study of ethical dimensions of human research itself, are essential for the future of psychiatry.