Patient Recruitment Methods to Evaluate Treatment Decision Making for Localized Prostate Cancer

Perceived barriers to the adoption of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis of community and academic urologists

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines recommend active surveillance as the preferred treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer, but only a minority of eligible men receive active surveillance, and practice variation is substantial. The aim of this study is to describe barriers to urologists' recommendation of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer and explore variation of barriers by setting.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews among 22 practicing urologists, evenly distributed between academic and community practice. We coded barriers to active surveillance according to a conceptual model of determinants of treatment quality to identify potential opportunities for intervention.

RESULTS

Community and academic urologists were generally in agreement on factors influencing active surveillance. Urologists perceived patient-level factors to have the greatest influence on recommendations, particularly tumor pathology, patient age, and judgements about the patient's ability to adhere to follow-up protocols. They also noted cross-cutting clinical barriers, including concerns about the adequacy of biopsy samples, inconsistent protocols to guide active surveillance, and side effects of biopsy procedures. Urologists had differing opinions on the impact of environmental factors, such as financial disincentives and fear of litigation.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite national and international recommendations, both academic and community urologists note a variety of barriers to implementing active surveillance in low risk prostate cancer. These barriers will need to be specifically addressed in efforts to help urologists offer active surveillance more consistently.

Barriers and Promoters to Participation in the Era of Shared Treatment Decision-Making

This study aimed to identify the barriers and promoters for participation in cancer treatment decision in the era of shared decision-making (SDM) process. A qualitative design was utilized. Nineteen nurses and 11 nurse practitioners from oncology inpatient and outpatient settings participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis. The findings include practice barrier, patient barrier, institutional policy barrier, professional barrier, scope of practice barrier, insurance coverage barrier, and administrative barrier. Multidisciplinary team approach, having a nursing voice during SDM, high level of knowledge of the disease and treatment, and personal valuation of SDM participation were perceived as promoters. Oncology nurses and nurse practitioners face many barriers to their participation during SDM. Organizational support and system-wide culture of SDM are essential to achieve better cancer treatment decisions outcome. Additional studies are needed to determine the factors that can promote more participation among nurses and nurse practitioners.

Challenges in recruitment to a randomized controlled study of cardiovascular disease reduction in sleep apnea: an analysis of alternative strategies

STUDY OBJECTIVES

A challenge in conducting randomized controlled trials of sleep apnea is the timely recruitment of participants to active and control arms. This study assesses the costs and efficiencies of alternative recruitment methods.

DESIGN

Analysis of recruitment data from the Best Apnea Intervention in Research planning study.

SETTING

Sleep clinics and cardiology practices.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred forty-eight individuals with an apnea-hypopnea index > 15 and cardiovascular (CV) risk factors randomized from a pool of more than 30,000 potentially eligible patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Comparisons: (1) modes of recruitment: face-to-face (F2F) recruitment versus mail-based recruitment (MBR); (2) recruitment source (sleep versus cardiology clinics).

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Recruitment yield was defined as the ratio of the number of subjects randomized to the number of screened records. Recruitment costs were estimated based on staff time. Of the 148 randomized subjects, 25 were recruited from sleep clinics using F2F recruitment and 123 were recruited from cardiology using a F2F (n = 35) or MBR (n = 88) strategy. F2F recruitment yields were 0.17% and 0.30% for sleep versus cardiology sources, respectively (P = 0.04). A comparison of F2F to MBR showed recruitment yields of 1.11% and 0.90% and costs per randomized subject of $2,139 and $647, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Large resources may be needed to meet the recruitment goals of sleep apnea intervention trials. Recruitment source and mode influence efficiencies. For a trial comparing active versus sham continuous positive airway pressure in patients with CV risk factors, recruiting from cardiology was more efficient than from sleep clinics. MBR was three times less costly than F2F recruitment.

Risk factors for financial hardship in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer: a population-based exploratory analysis

PURPOSE

Characteristics that predispose patients to financial hardship during cancer treatment are poorly understood. We therefore conducted a population-based exploratory analysis of potential factors associated with financial hardship and treatment nonadherence during and following adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with stage III colon cancer between 2008 and 2010 were identified from a population-based cancer registry representing 13 counties in Washington state. Patients were asked to complete a comprehensive survey on treatment-related costs. Patients were considered to have experienced financial hardship if they accrued debt, sold or refinanced their home, borrowed money from friends or family, or experienced a 20% or greater decline in their annual income as a result of treatment-related expenses. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate factors associated with financial hardship and treatment nonadherence.

RESULTS

A total of 284 responses were obtained from 555 eligible patients (response rate, 51.2%). Nearly all patients in the final sample were insured during treatment. In this sample, 38% of patients reported one or more financial hardships as a result of treatment. The factors most closely associated with treatment-related financial hardship were younger age and lower annual household income. Younger age, lower income, and unemployment or disability (which occurred in most instances following diagnosis) were most closely associated with treatment nonadherence.

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer may experience financial hardship, despite having health insurance coverage. Interventions to help at-risk patients early on during therapy may prevent long-term financial adverse effects.