Differences in attitudes between patients with primary colorectal cancer and patients with secondary colorectal cancer: is it reflected in their willingness to participate in drug trials?

Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT

Background

Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking.

Objective

The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome.

Design

This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals.

Setting

National Health Service trusts.

Participants

Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks.

Interventions

Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation.

Results

The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0-62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0-44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy.

Conclusions

The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Translation and validation of the greek version of a questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials

Background

The increasing number of clinical research opportunities requires increasing numbers of participants in clinical trials. However, it may become increasingly problematic, as protocols have become increasingly complex. Better understanding of patients’ attitudes towards their potential participation in clinical trials is essential for developing effective clinical trial recruitment strategies. In Greece, limited research has been conducted on this topic so far. This study aims to contribute to filling this gap.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted. Purposive sampling was used to select participants. The Greek version of a recently developed questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials, a 27-item scale distributed into four factors, was tested. In addition, participants were asked to provide information regarding their socio-demographics. A demographic comparison was conducted.

Results

The four-factor solution derived in our study consisted of the same 27 items and it was different from the six-factor solution that Arnetz et al. proposed. The factors risks and benefits, that consisted of 5 and 3 items respectively in the six-factor solution, were merged into one factor that consisted of 10 items in the four-factor solution. The four factors produced were Risks and benefits (ten items, α = 0,867), Patient’s expectations (six items, α = 0.864), Patient’s participation (five items, α = 0.827), and Cost and convenience (five items, α = 0,770). We found that demographic factors did not impact patients’ opinions about clinical trials participation, except for gender. The participants reported as important for participating in clinical trial: receiving clear and adequate information (95,5 %) and being given the opportunity to ask questions (97,8 %), take part in discussions regarding their own treatment (94,6 %), and voice their concerns and opinions (91,1 %). As factors strongly associated with participants’ willingness to participate in a clinical trial were reported: concerns about the risks of being in a clinical trial (87,5 %), the possible side effects of clinical trials (86,3 %), the type of treatment given in a clinical trial (83,7 %), and whether participation would improve their quality of life (QoL) (81,5 %).

Conclusions

The preliminary validation of the Greek version of the questionnaire measuring patient perceptions and expectations of participating in clinical trials demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability and could be further tested in larger samples. The findings that emerged from this study are in line with previous literature.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07111-x.

Gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for chemoradiation patients with head and neck cancer: the TUBE pilot RCT

BACKGROUND

Approximately 9000 new cases of head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCCs) are treated by the NHS each year. Chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is a commonly used treatment for advanced HNSCC. Approximately 90% of patients undergoing CRT require nutritional support via gastrostomy or nasogastric tube feeding. Long-term dysphagia following CRT is a primary concern for patients. The effect of enteral feeding routes on swallowing function is not well understood, and the two feeding methods have, to date (at the time of writing), not been compared. The aim of this pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to compare these two options.

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods multicentre study to establish the feasibility of a RCT comparing oral feeding plus pre-treatment gastrostomy with oral feeding plus as-required nasogastric tube feeding in patients with HNSCC. Patients were recruited from four tertiary centres treating cancer and randomised to the two arms of the study (using a 1 : 1 ratio). The eligibility criteria were patients with advanced-staged HNSCC who were suitable for primary CRT with curative intent and who presented with no swallowing problems.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the willingness to be randomised. A qualitative process evaluation was conducted alongside an economic modelling exercise. The criteria for progression to a Phase III trial were based on a hypothesised recruitment rate of at least 50%, collection of outcome measures in at least 80% of those recruited and an economic value-of-information analysis for cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Of the 75 patients approached about the trial, only 17 consented to be randomised [0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.32]. Among those who were randomised, the compliance rate was high (0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05). Retention rates were high at completion of treatment (0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05), at the 3-month follow-up (0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04) and at the 6-month follow-up (0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04). No serious adverse events were recorded in relation to the trial. The qualitative substudy identified several factors that had an impact on recruitment, many of which are amenable to change. These included organisational factors, changing cancer treatments and patient and clinician preferences. A key reason for the differential recruitment between sites was the degree to which the multidisciplinary team gave a consistent demonstration of equipoise at all patient interactions at which supplementary feeding was discussed. An exploratory economic model generated from published evidence and expert opinion suggests that, over the 6-month model time horizon, pre-treatment gastrostomy tube feeding is not a cost-effective option, although this should be interpreted with caution and we recommend that this should not form the basis for policy. The economic value-of-information analysis indicates that additional research to eliminate uncertainty around model parameters is highly likely to be cost-effective.

STUDY LIMITATIONS

The recruitment issues identified for this cohort may not be applicable to other populations undergoing CRT. There remains substantial uncertainty in the economic evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial did not meet one of the three criteria for progression, as the recruitment rate was lower than hypothesised. Once patients were recruited to the trial, compliance and retention in the trial were both high. The implementation of organisational and operational measures can increase the numbers recruited. The economic analysis suggests that further research in this area is likely to be cost-effective.

FUTURE WORK

The implementation of organisational and operational measures can increase recruitment. The appropriate research question and design of a future study needs to be identified. More work is needed to understand the experiences of nasogastric tube feeding in patients undergoing CRT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48569216.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cancer patients' perceptions of factors influencing their decisions on participation in clinical drug trials: A qualitative meta-synthesis

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To examine cancer patients' perceptions of factors that may influence their decisions on participating in phase I-III clinical drug trials.

BACKGROUND

The number of cancer participants in clinical drug trials has increased rapidly in Denmark in recent years. The rights, safety and well-being of patients considering participation are protected by the international, ethical and scientific principles. A meta-synthesis was conducted to enable health professionals to support cancer patients who are considering trial participation in accordance with the above principles.

DESIGN

Meta-synthesis.

METHODS

A qualitative meta-synthesis, as described by Sandelowski and Barroso, was conducted based on a literature search in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Nine reports were found eligible and were included. The PRISMA checklist was used.

RESULTS

A framework was developed, and patients' perceptions of the factors influencing their decisions were identified, namely patients' perceptions of their relatives, the physician, the hope of therapeutic benefit, altruism, having other options and living with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that cancer patients' decisions on participation in clinical drug trials are influenced by their perceptions of trust towards the physician, their relatives' attitudes and the consequences participation might have for their families. Patients are motivated to participate due to the hope of therapeutic benefit and for altruistic reasons. The factors influencing their decisions to participate include a cost-benefit consideration, which in turn may be subject to the patient's perception of having other options available besides participation. This may be related to the patient's attitude towards living with cancer, and the decision can be a way of trying to cope with the psychological aspects of living with cancer.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The results of this meta-synthesis offer insight into patients' perceptions of what may influence their decisions, and they enable health professionals to support patients making such decisions.

A programme of research to set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the prevention and treatment of skin disease

Background

Skin diseases are very common and can have a large impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. This programme addressed four diseases: (1) eczema, (2) vitiligo, (3) squamous cell skin cancer (SCC) and (4) pyoderma gangrenosum (PG).

Objective

To set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the treatment and prevention of skin disease in our four chosen diseases.

Design

Mixed methods including eight systematic reviews, three prioritisation exercises, two pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs), three feasibility studies, two core outcome initiatives, four funding proposals for national RCTs and one completed national RCT.

Setting

Secondary care, primary care and the general population.

Participants

Patients (and their caregivers) with eczema, vitiligo, SCC and PG, plus health-care professionals with an interest in skin disease.

Interventions

Our three intervention studies included (1) barrier enhancement using emollients from birth to prevent eczema (pilot RCT); (2) handheld narrowband ultraviolet light B therapy for treating vitiligo (pilot RCT); and (3) oral ciclosporin (Neoral®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals) compared with oral prednisolone for managing PG (pragmatic national RCT).

Results

Systematic reviews included two overarching systematic reviews of RCTs of treatments for eczema and vitiligo, an umbrella review of systematic reviews of interventions for the prevention of eczema, two reviews of treatments for SCC (one included RCTs and the second included observational studies), and three reviews of outcome measures and outcome reporting. Three prioritisation partnership exercises identified 26 priority areas for future research in eczema, vitiligo and SCC. Two international consensus initiatives identified four core domains for future eczema trials and seven core domains for vitiligo trials. Two pilot RCTs and three feasibility studies critically informed development of four trial proposals for external funding, three of which are now funded and one is pending consideration by funders. Our pragmatic RCT tested the two commonly used systemic treatments for PG (prednisolone vs. ciclosporin) and found no difference in their clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Both drugs showed limited benefit. Only half of the participants’ ulcers had healed by 6 months. For those with healed ulcers, recurrence was common (30%). Different side effect profiles were noted for each drug, which can inform clinical decisions on an individual patient basis. Three researchers were trained to PhD level and a dermatology patient panel was established to ensure patient involvement in all aspects of the programme.

Conclusions

Findings from this programme of work have already informed clinical guidelines and patient information resources. Feasibility studies have ensured that large national pragmatic trials will now be conducted on important areas of treatment uncertainty that address the needs of patients and the NHS. There is scope for considerable improvement in terms of trial design, conduct and reporting for RCTs of skin disease, which can be improved through wider collaboration, registration of trial protocols and complete reporting and international consensus over core outcome sets. Three national trials have now been funded as a result of this work. Two international initiatives to establish how best to measure the core outcome domains for eczema and vitiligo are ongoing.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention (BEEP) (ISRCTN84854178 and NCT01142999), Study of Treatments fOr Pyoderma GAngrenosum Patients (STOP GAP) (ISRCTN35898459) and Hand Held NB-UVB for Early or Focal Vitiligo at Home (HI-Light Pilot Trial) (NCT01478945).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 4, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Awareness of acute myeloid leukaemia risk induced by diagnosis of a myelodysplastic syndrome

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) can evolve to acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) in approximately 30% of cases. Knowing their AML risk is important for patients because it might impact adherence to care and psychological health. The aim of this study was to evaluate the awareness of AML risk among MDS patients and to study the factors associated with this awareness. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to all members of French and Australian patients' national MDS associations. Data of 301 patients were analysed. Patients were satisfied with the information they had received, but 33.2% did not know that they had an increased risk of developing AML. Younger age, higher-risk MDS treatment, preferences for health-related information and satisfaction with information provided about treatment were the factors independently associated with awareness of AML risk. Compared to unaware patients, patients knowing their risk were more likely to participate in a hypothetical clinical trial (83.0% vs 72.4%, p=0.043). More efforts are needed to provide more systematic information about AML risk to patients wishing to know it. More research is needed to study if increasing awareness can lead to more active engagement of MDS patients in their care and can increase the rate of clinical trial participation.

Patients' willingness to participate in clinical trials and their views on aspects of cancer research: results of a prospective patient survey

Background

Recruitment to clinical trials can be challenging and slower than anticipated. This prospective patient survey aimed to investigate the proportion of patients approached about a trial who agree to participate, their motivations for trial participation and their views on aspects of cancer research.

Methods

Patients who had been approached about participation in any clinical trials in the Gastrointestinal and Lymphoma Unit at the Royal Marsden were invited to complete a questionnaire. The statistical analysis is mainly descriptive, with percentages being reported. Univariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine any associations between patient characteristics and patient responses.

Results

From August 2013–July 2014, 276 patients received 298 clinical trial patient information sheets and were asked to complete the questionnaire. The majority of patients (263 patients, 88 %) consented to a clinical trial and 249 of the 263 patients (95 %) completed the questionnaire. Multiple factors influenced decisions to participate in clinical trials, with patients stating that the most important reasons were that the trial offered the best treatment available and that the trial results could benefit others. Of the 249 questionnaire respondents, 78 % would donate their tissue for genetic research, 75 % would consider participating in studies requiring a research biopsy and 75 % felt that patients should be informed of trial results. Patients treated with palliative intent and those who had received multiple lines of treatment were more willing to consider research biopsies. Of the patients approached about a clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product, 48–50 % would have liked more information on the study drugs/procedures.

Conclusion

The majority of patients approached about a clinical trial consented to one or more trials. Patients’ motivations for trial participation included potential personal benefit and altruistic reasons. A high proportion of patients were willing to donate tissue for research and to consider trials involving repeat biopsies. The majority of patients feel that participants should be informed of trial results and there is a group of patients who would like more detailed trial information.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1105-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Hope for a cure and altruism are the main motives behind participation in phase 3 clinical cancer trials

It is necessary to carry out randomised clinical cancer trials (RCTs) in order to evaluate new, potentially useful treatments for future cancer patients. Participation in clinical trials plays an important role in determining whether a new treatment is the best therapy or not. Therefore, it is important to understand on what basis patients decide to participate in clinical trials and to investigate the implications of this understanding for optimising the information process related to study participation. The aims of this study were to (1) describe motives associated with participation in RCTs, (2) assess if patients comprehend the information related to trial enrolment, and (3) describe patient experiences of trial participation. Questionnaires were sent to 96 cancer patients participating in one of nine ongoing clinical phase 3 trials at the Department of Oncology, Uppsala University Hospital in Sweden. Eighty-eight patients completed the questionnaire (response rate 92%); 95% of these were patients in adjuvant therapy and 5% participated in clinical trials on palliative care. Two main reasons for participation were identified: personal hope for a cure and altruism. Patients show adequate understanding of the information provided to them in the consent process and participation entails high patient satisfaction.

Drivers and barriers to patient participation in RCTs

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of patients into randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is essential for treatment evaluation. Appreciation of the barriers and drivers towards participation is important for trial design, communication and information provision.

METHOD

As part of an intervention to facilitate effective multidisciplinary team communication about RCTs, cancer patients completed two study-specific questionnaires following trial discussions. One questionnaire examined reasons why patients accepted or declined trial entry, the other perceptions about their health-care professionals' (HCPs) information giving.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were completed by 74% (358/486) of patients approached; of these 81% (291/358) had joined an RCT, 16% (56/358) had declined and 3% (11/358) were undecided. Trial participation status of the 128 patients not returning questionnaires is unknown. Trial acceptance was not dependent on disease stage, tumour type, sex or age. Satisfaction with trial information and HCPs' communication was generally very good, irrespective of participation decisions. The primary reason given for trial acceptance was altruism (40%; 110/275), and for declining, trust in the doctor (28%; 12/43). Decliners preferred doctors to choose their treatment rather than be randomised (54% vs 39%; P<0.027). Acceptors were more likely to perceive doctors as wanting them to join trials (54% vs 30%; P<0.001). Trial type, that is, standard treatment vs novel or different durations of treatment, also influenced acceptance rates.

CONCLUSION

The drivers and barriers to trial participation are partly related to trial design. Unease about randomisation and impact of duration on treatment efficacy are barriers for some. Altruism and HCPs' perceived attitudes are powerful influencing factors.

Innovating information-delivery for potential clinical trials participants. What do patients want from multi-media resources?

OBJECTIVE

To discover whether the provision of clinical trials information via a multi-media platform could better meet the needs, preferences and practices of potential cancer trial participants.

METHODS

A mixed qualitative and quantitative questionnaire was delivered to 72 participants from cancer support groups to elicit views on the provision and design features of multimedia resources in delivering clinical trials information.

RESULTS

Perceived lack of information is an expressed barrier to clinical trials participation. Multimedia resources were viewed positively as a way to address this barrier by most potential clinical trials participants; in particular by helping to align information to individual needs, promote active engagement with information, and by allowing more control of the learning experience. Whilst text remained the most valued attribute of any resource, other highly rated attributes included the resource being simple to use, easily accessible, having a clear focus, incorporating examples and visual aids, and being interactive. Provision of support for the learning resource was also rated highly.

CONCLUSION

As in other areas, such as education, multimedia resources may enhance the delivery and acceptance of information regarding clinical trials.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Better alignment of information may have a positive impact on recruitment and retention into clinical trials.

Information needs across the colorectal cancer care continuum: scoping the literature

Because cancer care requires a multifaceted approach, providing useful and timely information to people with colorectal cancer may be fragmented and inconsistent. Our interest was in examining what has and has not captured the attention of researchers speaking to the information needs of people with colorectal cancer. We followed Arksey and O'Malley's framework for the methodology of scoping review. Focusing solely on colorectal cancer, we analysed 239 articles to get a picture of which information needs and sources of information, as well as the timing of providing information, were attended to. Treatment-related information received the most mentions (26%). Healthcare professionals (49%) were mentioned as the most likely source of information. Among articles focused on one stage of the care continuum, post-treatment (survivorship) received the most attention (16%). Only 27% of the articles consulted people with colorectal cancer and few attended to diet/nutrition and bowel management. This study examined the numerical representation of issues to which researchers attend, not the quality of the mentions. We ponder, however, on the relationship between the in/frequency of mentions and the actual information needs of people with colorectal cancer as well as the availability, sources and timing of information.

Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self

Background

Randomised controlled trials of healthcare interventions depend on the participation of volunteers who might not derive any personal health benefit from their participation. The idea that altruistic-type motives are important for trial participation is understandably widespread, but recent studies suggest considerations of personal benefit can influence participation decisions in various ways.

Methods

Non-participant observation of recruitment consultations (n = 25) and in-depth interviews with people invited to participate in the UK REFLUX trial (n = 13).

Results

Willingness to help others and to contribute towards furthering medical knowledge featured strongly among the reasons people gave for being interested in participating in the trial. But decisions to attend recruitment appointments and take part were not based solely on consideration of others. Rather, they were presented as conditional on individuals additionally perceiving some benefit (and no significant disadvantage) for themselves. Potential for personal benefit or disadvantage could be seen in both the interventions being evaluated and trial processes.

Conclusions

The term 'conditional altruism' concisely describes the willingness to help others that may initially incline people to participate in a trial, but that is unlikely to lead to trial participation in practice unless people also recognise that participation will benefit them personally. Recognition of conditional altruism has implications for planning trial recruitment communications to promote informed and voluntary trial participation.

Trial registration

ISRCTN15517081

A qualitative assessment of the experience of participating in a cancer-related clinical trial

PURPOSE

This study aims to explore the experiences of patients enrolled in a cancer-related clinical drug treatment trial utilising a qualitative focus-group methodology. Specifically, this study aimed to explore the impact of social and family support, the challenges and advantages of taking part in a clinical trial and the experiences of patients at the conclusion of the trial.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted at a public hospital in Melbourne in 2008. A total of 14 participants were recruited. Three focus groups and two interviews were conducted with 13 patients who had completed a cancer-related clinical trial. Comments from a letter written by a trial participant were also analysed. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded according to emerging themes.

RESULTS

Information obtained was grouped around four main themes; making sense of trial participation, challenges of treatment in the context of clinical trial participation, support during trial participation and coping with trial conclusion. Participants experienced a mixture of hope, uncertainty and apprehension as they considered whether to take part in a clinical trial. At different stages of the trial they made sense of their participation by thinking about the possible benefits of participation. Trial participation was also associated with a number of emotional and practical challenges. Generally, participants were very positive about the support they received from health professionals, family and friends. The end of the trial was associated with a mix of emotions, including relief, disappointment, hope of future help, uncertainty and abandonment.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trial participation is a positive experience for many patients with cancer, although there are a number of associated practical and emotional challenges. Trial participants may benefit from closer follow-up from clinical trial staff, especially the treating doctor, assessment of support needs and help in re-evaluating the meaning of their trial participation if their initial hopes and expectations are not met.

A randomised controlled study of an audiovisual patient information intervention on informed consent and recruitment to cancer clinical trials

Recruitment to cancer clinical trials needs to be improved, as does patient knowledge and understanding about clinical trials, in order for patients to make an informed choice about whether or not to take part. Audiovisual patient information (AVPI) has been shown to improve knowledge and understanding in various areas of practice, but there is limited information about its effect in the cancer clinical trial setting, particularly in relation to consent rates. In this study, 173 patients were randomised to receive either the AVPI, in addition to the standard trial-specific written information, or the written information alone. There was no difference in clinical trial recruitment rates between the two groups with similar study entry rates: 72.1% in the AVPI group and 75.9% in the standard information group. The estimated odds ratio for refusal (intervention/no intervention) was 1.19 (95% CI 0.55-2.58, P=0.661). Knowledge scores increased more in the AVPI group compared to the standard group (P=0.0072). The change in anxiety score between the arms was also statistically significant (P=0.011) with anxiety improving in the intervention arm more than in the no intervention arm. Audiovisual patient information was shown to be a useful tool in improving patient knowledge and anxiety, but further work is necessary in relation to its effect on clinical trial recruitment rates.

Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors

BACKGROUND

Enrolling participants onto clinical trials of cancer presents an important challenge. We aimed to identify the concerns of patients with cancer about, and the barriers to, participation in clinical trials.

METHODS

We did a systematic review to assess studies of barriers to participation in experimental trials and randomised trials for validity and content. We estimated the frequency with which patients identified particular issues by pooling across studies that presented data for barriers to participation in clinical trials as proportions.

FINDINGS

We analysed 12 qualitative studies (n=722) and 21 quantitative studies (n=5452). Two qualitative studies inquired of patients who were currently enrolled onto clinical trials, and ten inquired of patients who were eligible for enrolment onto various clinical trials. Barriers to participation in clinical trials were protocol-related, patient-related, or physician-related. The most common reasons cited as barriers included: concerns with the trial setting; a dislike of randomisation; general discomfort with the research process; complexity and stringency of the protocol; presence of a placebo or no-treatment group; potential side-effects; being unaware of trial opportunities; the idea that clinical trials are not appropriate for serious diseases; fear that trial involvement would have a negative effect on the relationship with their physician; and their physician's attitudes towards the trial. Meta-analysis confirmed the findings of our systematic review.

INTERPRETATION

The identification of such barriers to the participation in clinical trials should help trialists to develop strategies that will keep to a maximum participation and cooperation in cancer trials, while informing and protecting prospective participants adequately.