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

Participants' perceptions support the coexistence of benefits and burdens of cancer clinical trial participation

BACKGROUND

To advance oncology treatment for adults, comprehensive understanding of how and why people decide to enroll in, remain in, and withdraw from cancer clinical trials is needed. While quantitative findings provide insights into these benefits and burdens, they provide limited understanding of how adults with cancer appraise their situation and approach decisions to undertake a clinical trial. The goal of this mixed methods analysis was to conceptualize participants' assessment of benefits and burdens related to cancer clinical trial participation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This sub-group analysis of 21 participants was part of a larger sequential, explanatory mixed methods study. We used Creamer's integrated approach to linking quantitative and qualitative data to assess convergence, with qualitative data explaining quantitative results. Participants were grouped into four categories based on quantitative benefit/burden scores and thematic analysis of their qualitative data was used to describe these categories.

RESULTS

Across groups participants varied in descriptions of benefits and burdens of cancer clinical trial participation and reasons for participating. Those reporting high benefit/low burden described "seizing the opportunity to participate;" those reporting low benefit/low burden described "taking responsibility" through trial participation; those reporting low benefit/high burden described how they were "willing to endure," and those with high benefit/high burden emphasized "deciding to act."

CONCLUSIONS

Participants' qualitative descriptions of benefits and burdens were more nuanced and dynamic than reflected in their quantitative ratings. Thus, current measures may be missing important concepts, such as logistic challenges of trial participation. Our results have implications for consenting procedures and decisional support guidance offered to patients and their caregivers.

Influences on clinical trial participation: Enhancing recruitment through a gender lens - A scoping review

Background

Suboptimal clinical trial recruitment contributes to research waste. Evidence suggests there may be gender-based differences in willingness to participate in clinical research. Identifying gender-based differences impacting the willingness of trial participation may assist trial recruitment.

Objectives

To examine factors that influence the willingness of men and women to participate in clinical trials and to identify modifiable factors that may be targeted to optimise trial participation.

Material and methods

Electronic databases were searched with key words relating to 'gender', 'willingness to participate' and 'trial'. Included studies were English language and reported gender-based differences in willingness to participate in clinical trials, or factors that influence a single gender to participate in clinical trials. Studies were excluded if they described the demographic factors of trial participants or if the majority of participants were pregnant. Extracted data were coded, categorized, analysed thematically and interpreted using Arksey and O'Malley's framework.

Results

Sixty-three studies were included. Two main themes were identified: trial characteristics and participant characteristics. A number of gender-based differences moderating willingness to participate were observed although only one, 'concern for self' was found to influence actual trial participation rates between genders.

Conclusion

The relationship between factors influencing willingness to participate in clinical trials is complex. The influence of gender on willingness to participate, while important, may be moderated by other factors including socioeconomic status, ethnicity and health condition. Exploring factors that influence willingness to participate specific to a study cohort likely offers the most promise to optimise trial recruitment of that cohort.

Decision-making and autonomy among participants in early-phase cancer immunotherapy trials: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Participants considering early-phase cancer clinical trials (CTs) need to understand the unique risks and benefits prior to providing informed consent. This qualitative study explored the factors that influence patients' decisions about participating in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs through the ethical lens of relational autonomy.

METHODS

Using an interpretive descriptive design, interviews were conducted with 21 adult patients with advanced cancer who had enrolled in an early-phase CT. Data was analyzed using relational autonomy ethical theory and constant comparative analysis.

RESULTS

The extent to which participants perceived themselves as having a choice to participate in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs was a central construct. Perceptions of choice varied according to whether participants characterized their experience as an act of desperation or as an opportunity to receive a novel treatment. Intersecting psychosocial and structural factors influenced participants' decision making about participating in early-phase cancer immunotherapy trials. These relational factors included: (1) being provided with hope; (2) having trust; (3) having the ability to withdraw; and (4) timing constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the continuum of perceived choice that exists among patients with cancer when considering participation in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs. All participants were interpreted as exhibiting some degree of relational autonomy within the psychosocial and structural context of early-phase CT decision making. This study offers insights into the intersection of cancer care delivery, personal beliefs and values, and established CT processes and structures that can inform future practices and policies associated with early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs to better support patients in making informed decisions.

A discrete choice experiment to quantify the influence of trial features on the decision to participate in cystic fibrosis trials

BACKGROUND

Patient-centred trial design optimises recruitment and retention, reduces trial failure rates and increases the diversity of trial cohorts. This allows safe and effective treatments to reach clinic more quickly. To achieve this, patients' views must be incorporated into trial design.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was used to quantify preferences of pwCF for trials features; medicine type, trial location, stipend, washout, drug access on trial completion and trial design. Respondents were presented pairs of hypothetical trial scenarios with different level combinations assigned through experimental design. Respondents were asked to pick their preferred option or decline both. The cross-sectional data were explored using a Random Parameters Logit model.

RESULTS

We received 207 eligible responses between Oct2020-Jan2021. The strongest influence on the decision to participate was trial location; pwCF favour participation at their usual clinical centre. Greater travel distances made respondents less willing to participate. Post-trial drug access ranked second. pwCF would rather participate in modulator trials than trials of other drugs. In general, pwCF did not favour a washout period, but were more prepared to washout non-modulators than modulators. Stipend provision was not ranked highly, but higher stipends increased intention to participate. Trial design (placebo vs open-label) had minimal influence on the decision to participate. There are complex interactions between placebos and washouts.

CONCLUSIONS

We used quantitative methods to systematically elicit preferences of pwCF for clinical trials' features. We explore the relevance of our findings to trial design and delivery in the current CF trials landscape.

Factors that impact on recruitment to vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease. Our GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings. Some factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial. Other factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision. Finally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

Patient and public involvement to inform priorities and practice for research using existing healthcare data for children's and young people's cancers

BACKGROUND

In the United Kingdom, healthcare data is collected on all patients receiving National Health Service (NHS) care, including children and young people (CYP) with cancer. This data is used to inform service delivery, and with special permissions used for research. The use of routinely collected health data in research is an advancing field with huge potential benefit, particularly in CYP with cancer where case numbers are small and the impact across the life course can be significant. Patient and public involvement (PPI) exercise aims: Identify current barriers to trust relating to the use of healthcare data for research. Determine ways to increase public and patient confidence in the use of healthcare data in research. Define areas of research importance to CYP and their carers using healthcare data.

METHODS

Young people currently aged between 16 and 25 years who had a cancer diagnosis before the age of 20 years and carers of a young person with cancer were invited to take part via social media and existing networks of service users. Data was collected during two interactive online workshops totalling 5 h and comprising of presentations from health data experts, case-studies and group discussions. With participant consent the workshops were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Ten young people and six carers attended workshop one. Four young people and four carers returned for workshop two. Lack of awareness of how data is used, and negative media reporting were seen as the main causes of mistrust. Better communication and education on how data is used were felt to be important to improving public confidence. Participants want the ability to have control over their own data use. Late effects, social and education outcomes and research on rare tumours were described as key research priorities for data use.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to improve public and patient trust in our use of data for research, we need to improve communication about how data is used and the benefits that arise.

A qualitative study examining newly diagnosed breast cancer patients' experiences of participating in the Alberta Moving Beyond Breast Cancer (AMBER) prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Decisions to participate in cancer trials are associated with uncertainty, distress, wanting to help find a cure, the hope for benefit, and altruism. There is a gap in the literature regarding research examining participation in prospective cohort studies. The aim of this study was to examine the experiences of newly diagnosed women with breast cancer participating in the AMBER Study to identify potential strategies to support patients' recruitment, retention, and motivation.

METHODS

Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients were recruited from the Alberta Moving Beyond Breast Cancer (AMBER) cohort study. Data were collected using semi-structured conversational interviews with 21 participants from February to May 2020. Transcripts were imported into NVivo software for management, organization, and coding. Inductive content analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Five main concepts associated with recruitment, retention, and motivation to participate were identified. These main concepts included: (1) personal interest in exercise and nutrition; (2) investment in individual results; (3) personal and professional interest in research; (4) burden of assessments; (5) importance of research staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer survivors participating in this prospective cohort study had numerous reasons for participating and these reasons could be considered in future studies to enhance participant recruitment and retention. Improving recruitment and retention in prospective cancer cohort studies could result in more valid and generalizable study findings that could improve the care of cancer survivors.

DNA Methylation Research in Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Population

Despite increased sophistication in DNA methylation (DNAm) measurement and methods, conducting studies in specific populations such as the hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) population, presents unique challenges and study design considerations. In this article, we explain the motivation for investigating DNAm in the HCT population, highlighting important study design features and key findings in a longitudinal prospective pilot study of DNAm in 32 patients undergoing autologous HCT in Central Virginia, USA. We also discuss limitations and challenges to generating robust results. We observed that HCT does not prevent high-quality DNA from being extracted from whole blood for DNAm research and that longitudinal prospective studies that span pre- and 2-months post-HCT are feasible. Critically, we did not observe significant impacts of cancer diagnosis, time since transplant, age, or chromosomal sex on overall DNAm data dimensionality. These observations demonstrate that while extreme care is required to ensure generalizable, accurate, and interpretable results, researchers should not avoid HCT-DNAm research simply for fear that the transplant procedure or presence of a cancer diagnosis will prevent meaningful conclusions from being drawn. DNAm is an attractive biomarker that is understudied in patients undergoing HCT and needs to expand to improve precise prediction of HCT outcomes.

The factors affecting implementing shared decision-making in clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey of clinical research coordinators' perceptions in Japan

BACKGROUND

The shared decision-making model has been proposed as the ideal treatment decision-making process in medical encounters. However, the decision to participate in clinical trials rarely involves shared decision-making. In this study, we investigated the perceptions of Japanese clinical research coordinators who routinely support the informed consent process.

METHODS

This study aimed to (1) identify clinical research coordinators' perceptions of the current status of shared decision-making implementation and its influencing factors, and (2) obtain suggestions to enhance the shared decision-making process in clinical trials. A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a web questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned behaviour. Invitations were sent to 1087 Japanese medical institutions, and responses from the participants were captured via the web. The shared decision-making process in clinical trials was defined according to the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire for Doctors. The effect of the attitudes toward shared decision-making, clinical research coordinators' subjective norms towards its implementation, perceived barriers to autonomous decision-making, and the number of difficult steps in the shared decision-making process on the shared decision-making current status as the shared decision-making intention was assessed by multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 373 clinical research coordinators responded to the questionnaire. Many believed that they were already implementing shared decision-making. Attitudes toward shared decision-making (t = 3.400, p < .001), clinical research coordinators' subjective norms towards its implementation (t = 2.239, p = .026), perceived barriers to autonomous decision-making (t = 3.957, p < .001), and the number of difficult steps in the shared decision-making process (t = 3.317, p = .001) were found to significantly influence current status (Adjusted R² = .123). However, results on perceived barriers to autonomous decision-making and the number of difficult steps in the shared decision-making process indicate a lack of knowledge of shared decision-making and decision-support skills among clinical research coordinators.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical research coordinators might positively perceive shared decision-making based on normative beliefs without sufficient knowledge of it. Therefore, providing appropriate training on shared decision-making to clinical research coordinators and increasing awareness among stakeholders could enable its improvement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

"Nothing to lose and the possibility of gaining": a qualitative study on the feasibility and acceptability of registry-based randomised controlled trials among cancer patients and clinicians

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the "gold standard" for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in clinical research. However, conventional RCTs are typically complex, expensive, and have narrow eligibility criteria, which limits generalisability. Registry-based randomised controlled trials (RRCTs) are an alternative approach that integrates the internal validity of an RCT with the external validity of a clinical registry by recruiting real-world patients and leveraging an existing registry platform for data collection. As RRCT is a novel research design, there has been limited research on the feasibility and acceptability of RRCTs from the patients' and trial team's perspectives. This study aims to explore patients', clinicians', and study coordinators' perspectives towards participation in and conduct of oncology RRCTs in Australia.

METHODS

Thirty-seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 cancer patients, 15 clinicians, and 7 study coordinators. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three overarching themes were identified: (1) enablers and barriers to recruitment and enrolment of patients in RRCTs, (2) experiences of patients participating in RRCTs, and (3) recommendations for the implementation of future RRCTs. For patients, altruism and "trust in the clinician" were key reasons to participate in a RRCT. For clinicians and clinical trial coordinators, the RRCT study design was perceived as "simple and straightforward" but "less exciting" than RCTs. Competition from commercially sponsored RCTs poses challenges for investigator-led RRCTs recruitment, particularly if eligible patient numbers are low. There were limited impacts on patients' treatment experiences and clinicians' clinical workflow given that the RRCTs explored different standards of care. Recommendations to improve the enrolment of patients in RRCTs included generating greater buy-in from clinicians by increasing awareness of RRCTs via education initiatives and broader promotion of the "selling point" of RRCTs and providing monetary compensation to hospitals for enrolling patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst patients, clinicians, and study coordinators were generally supportive of RRCTs, several barriers to effective RRCT implementation in oncology were identified. Developing strategies to increase acceptance of the methodology by clinicians will help enhance the uptake of RRCTs in Australia and internationally.

Interventions supporting cancer patients in making decisions regarding participation in clinical trials - a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Existing research on the perspectives of patients with cancer and health care professionals indicates that patient decision making on cancer clinical trial participation is a complex process and may be poorly understood, possibly compromising their decision to participate. This systematic review investigates interventions that support patients in their decision-making processes regarding whether to participate or not and assesses the qualities of the interventions, measures used and related outcomes.

METHODS

Six databases were systematically searched and only studies evaluating interventions that support the decision making of adult patients offered to enter a cancer clinical trial were included. Ten articles met the criteria and were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach.

RESULTS

The research focus of the included studies reflected the multifactorial nature of what constitutes support for patient decision making in terms of entering a cancer clinical trial. However, most interventions were based on the hypothesis that more information leads to support in decision making, and did not take other factors, such as the relationship to the clinical staff or relatives, the patients' strong hope for therapeutic benefit or other existential needs into account. The interventions were primarily based on a specific tool, executed once, which seems to imply that decisions need only to be supported once and not at several time points throughout the decision process, and did not assess the importance of a patient's family- or social relations. Moreover, few interventions focused on the patients' counselling experience or assessed patient preferences in relation to decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate a lack of research on interventions to support patients' decision making that takes other factors, apart from improving knowledge of trials, into account. Limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of decision support interventions to improve the experience of support in adult patients with cancer. Interventions that take patient preferences in relation to decision making and the social context of decision processes into account need to be developed and assessed.

A complex challenge with unclear improvement: the need for involvement, contextualization and facilitation when managers implement a leadership model

PURPOSE

Management and leadership in health care are described as complex and challenging, and the span of control is known to be a key component in the manager's job demands. The implementation of change can be a challenge in health care, and managers often have roles as implementation leaders. Little attention has been given to how managers perceive the process of implementation. Thus, this study aims to explore second-line managers' perceptions of, prerequisites for and experiences from the implementation of changes in their manager's work conditions.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A grounded theory-based qualitative design was used. Data were collected from a purposive sample of nine second-line managers by individual semi-structured interviews. The three stages of initial coding, focus codes and axial coding were used in data analysis.

FINDINGS

Three thematic areas were identified: engagement, facilitation and achievement. The second-line managers' descriptions suggest that the change work entails a complex challenge with an unclear result. Involvement, consideration for the context and facilitation are needed to be able to conduct a cohesive implementation process.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This study findings outline that to succeed when implementing change in complex organizations, it is crucial that managers at different levels are involved in the entire process, and that there are prerequisites established for the facilitation and achievement of goals during the planning, implementation and follow-up.

Challenges in Recruitment and Retention: Leveraging Health-Related Antecedents and Information Carrier Factors to Improve Patient Participation in Pancreatic Cancer Research-A Review Article

ABSTRACT

Advancements in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) prevention, diagnosis, and treatment rely on representative and robust clinical trial participation. Given the severity of PDAC, along with the lack of effective early detection approaches, the need for accessible screening tools and new treatments is dire. Unfortunately, enrollment barriers often result in low participant accrual rates for PDAC studies and illustrate the challenging terrain researchers are facing. Research participation along with access to preventative care has been further impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. In this review, we use the Comprehensive Model for Information Seeking to discuss underexplored factors that influence patient participation in clinical studies. Adequate staffing, flexible scheduling, effective patient and physician communication, and culturally responsive messaging, along with the use of telehealth, can support enrollment objectives. Clinical research studies are a key component of health care, informing medical advancements, and improving outcomes. By leveraging health-related antecedents and information carrier factors, researchers can more effectively address barriers to participation and implement potential evidence-based mitigating strategies. While this work focuses on the PDAC research context, the lessons delineated here are applicable to the wider cancer research setting.

Barriers for cancer clinical trial enrollment: A qualitative study of the perspectives of healthcare providers

Background

Barriers to clinical trial enrollment have been the subject of extensive research; however, the rate of clinical trial participation has not improved significantly over time. Studies often emphasize patient-related barriers, but institutional and organizational barriers in the health care system may have a more substantial impact on clinical trial participation.

Objective

To qualitatively identify perceived barriers to clinical trial participation based on perspectives from healthcare providers.

Design

Qualitative research design with a phenomenological approach was used. A purposive sample of 18 healthcare providers participated in an in-depth focus group session. Participants were involved in cancer care and clinical research from a large hospital in the United States Midwest region. Data were transcribed, coded, and systematically analyzed through thematic content analysis.

Results

The data revealed four levels of barriers to clinical trial enrollment, with emergent themes within each level: patient (beliefs or trust, distance to trial sites, health insurance coverage, language, and immigration status), provider (limited awareness of trial, time constraint, and non-cooperation from colleagues), clinical (eligibility criteria and clinical design), and institutional (policy and limited logistic support).

Conclusion

Healthcare providers face complex, multifaceted, and interrelated barriers to clinical trial enrollment. To overcome these barriers, health care organizations need to commit more human and financial resources, break down boundaries for more efficient inter-departmental cooperation, develop more coordinated efforts in promoting trial awareness and participation, and remove unnecessary regulatory barriers.

Knowledge and attitudes towards clinical trials among women with ovarian cancer: results of the ACTO study

BACKGROUND

Despite several initiatives by research groups, regulatory authorities, and scientific associations to engage citizens/patients in clinical research, there are still obstacles to participation. Among the main discouraging aspects are incomplete understanding of the concepts related to a clinical trial, and the scant, sometimes confused, explanations given. This observational, cross-sectional multicenter study investigated knowledge, attitudes and trust in clinical research. We conducted a survey among women with ovarian cancer at their first follow-up visit or first therapy session, treated in centers belonging to the Mario Negri Gynecologic Oncology (MaNGO) and Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer (MITO) groups. A questionnaire on knowledge, attitudes and experience was assembled ad hoc after a literature review and a validation process involving patients of the Alliance against Ovarian Cancer (ACTO).

RESULTS

From 25 centers 348 questionnaire were collected; 73.5% of responders were 56 years or older, 54.8% had a high level of education, more than 80% had no experience of trial participation. Among participants 59% knew what clinical trials were and 71% what informed consent was. However, more than half did not know the meaning of the term randomization. More than half (56%) were in favor of participating in a clinical trial, but 35% were not certain. Almost all responders acknowledged the doctor's importance in decision-making. Patients' associations were recognized as having a powerful role in the design and planning of clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

This study helps depict the knowledge and attitudes of women with ovarian cancer in relation to clinical trials, suggesting measures aimed at improving trial "culture", literacy and compliance, and fresh ways of communication between doctors and patients.

Perceived End-of-Life Educational Needs by Clinical Trials Nurses at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Objective

Determine palliative care end-of-life (EOL) educational needs among clinical trials nurses (CTNs) at an urban comprehensive cancer center.

Methods

The End-Of-Life Professional Caregiver Survey (EPCS) was used to determine the EOL educational needs of CTNs and collect demographics on years of experience, education, past EOL-specific training, and possession of their own advanced directive. The “Surprise Question” was also asked to explore the percent of patients on clinical trials who may be nearing EOL.

Results

Twenty-nine CTNs completed the survey. Mean years of experience as an RN and CTN was 10.45 and 2.5, respectively. 79% and 17% held a bachelors or master's degree, respectively. Twenty-seven percent reported previous End-of-Life Nursing Education Consortium (ELNEC) or similar training and 20% stated they had their own advanced directive. Mean total score for the EPCS was 94.83, with subscale means of 42.41 for the Patient and Family Centered Communication (PFCC), 26.9 for Cultural and Ethical Values (CEV), and 25.52 for the Effective Care Delivery (ECD). Highest scoring items included confidence in communicating with colleagues about EOL care, being present with dying patients, and recognizing patients who are appropriate for hospice referral. Lowest scoring items included participating in code status discussions, resolving ethical issues and family conflicts at EOL, and addressing requests for assisted suicide. Responses to the Surprise Question indicated that 27.5% of the CTNs would not be surprised if half or more of their patients died within the next 12 months.

Conclusions

Many patients with cancer on clinical trials may be nearing EOL. CTNs perceive the need for education to increase confidence in handling difficult communication.

Methodological approaches for conducting follow-up research with clinical trial participants: a scoping review and expert interviews

Background

Evidence-based establishment and implementation of best principles, laws and ordinances that regulate clinical research depend on the consultation and involvement of trial participants. Yet, guidance on methodological approaches to obtain trial participants’ perspectives is currently missing. This scoping review therefore aimed at identifying, describing and evaluating research approaches to obtain trial participants’ feedback on their views and experiences.

Methods

We searched the electronic databases Medline and PsycInfo via Ovid and the Web of Science Core Collection. Clinical trials were included that involved adult participants that were conducted in selected high-income countries and that were published in peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 2018. In addition, 29 expert interviews were conducted between March and May 2019.

Results

Out of 5994 identified records, 23 articles were included in this review. Twelve studies used a qualitative approach, 10 were quantitative and one study used a mixed-method design. More than 75% of all work was conducted in the USA and the UK. The scoping review and the expert interviews highlighted that recruitment of participants was generally done through direct contact by principal investigators and/or study nurses or through searches in de-identified patient databases. Authors used surveys, interviews or focus group discussions. The tools used were either based on existing validated ones or developed and verified de novo with the support of experts and/or patient representatives.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first methodological literature review of approaches to researching experiences of clinical trial participants where findings were triangulated with expert interviews. Covering a range of indications, trial phases and study settings, it demonstrates that clinical trial participant perspectives and experience is heavily under-researched. This casts doubt on the overall robustness of available insight into trial participants’ views and experiences. Our results demonstrate that the methodology for studying participant opinion, perception and experience should be adapted to the measure of interest and conform to the study population. Using valid patient experience data is the basis to evaluate existing legal and regulatory human subject research frameworks for their appropriateness from a patient perspective. Such an evaluation will be critical to empower research participants.

Clinical Trial Participation: A Pilot Study of Patient-Identified Barriers

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial enrollment in the United States is lacking, particularly among older adult and ethnic and racial minority populations.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current study was to identify patient-related barriers to clinical trial participation using a mixed-methods patient survey and to offer insights to develop evidence-based implementation strategies to address these barriers.

METHODS

A retrospective survey was conducted of patients who were not interested in participating in a clinical trial to quantify the reasons these patients chose not to participate. Directed qualitative content analysis was used to identify themes that emerged from the write-in responses.

FINDINGS

The greatest patient-reported barriers were misperceptions about placebos, a desire to not feel like a human guinea pig, uncertainty surrounding clinical trial treatment effectiveness compared to standard care, and concerns about additional appointments or tests. Oncology nurses can address patient enrollment barriers by providing targeted education and participating in the informed consent process.

Barriers and facilitators to the participation of subjects in clinical trials: An overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

The demand for clinical trial participants is today one of the highest it has ever been and continues to increase. At the same time, subject recruitment continues to be problematic and the major reason for clinical trial premature terminations. The literature on clinical trial recruitment, which spans several decades and includes hundreds of studies, has an abundance of findings that can be synthesized by way of an overview to provide a well-informed and complete picture of the factors that determine subject participation.

OBJECTIVES

An overview of the systematic reviews that report barriers and facilitators to clinical trial participation was conducted. The extracted data were synthesized, and a thematic framework of the factors that affect subject participation in clinical trials was developed. The overview extended across medical subjects and demographics.

METHODS

Thirty reviews that complied with the inclusion criteria were included. These reviews covered 753 relevant primary studies and reported 881 barriers and facilitators. The barriers and facilitators were thematically synthesized and a thematic framework of 20 themes was developed. The quality of the included reviews was assessed and reported.

MAIN RESULTS

Several opportunities to increase clinical trial participation, by developing interventions and changing the trial design, derived from an analysis of the thematic framework. That analysis also showed that most of the 20 themes operate mainly as a barrier or as a facilitator, and that most have an effect across medical subjects. As to the quality elements assessed, some reviews complied almost fully but most only partially.

The CORBEL matrix on informed consent in clinical studies: a multidisciplinary approach of Research Infrastructures Building Enduring Life-science Services

BACKGROUND

Informed consent forms for clinical research are several and variable at international, national and local levels. According to the literature, they are often unclear and poorly understood by participants. Within the H2020 project CORBEL-Coordinated Research Infrastructures Building Enduring Life-science Services-clinical researchers, researchers in ethical, social, and legal issues, experts in planning and management of clinical studies, clinicians, researchers in citizen involvement and public engagement worked together to provide a minimum set of requirements for informed consent in clinical studies.

METHODS

The template was based on a literature review including systematic reviews and guidelines searched on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, NICE, SIGN, GIN, and Clearinghouse databases, and on comparison of templates gathered through an extensive search on the websites of research institutes, national and international agencies, and international initiatives. We discussed the draft versions step-by-step and then we referred to it as the "matrix" to underline its modular character and indicate that it allows adaptation to the context in which it will be used. The matrix was revised by representatives of two international patient groups.

RESULTS

The matrix covers the process of ensuring that the appropriate information, context and setting are provided so that the participant can give truly informed consent. It addresses the key topics and proposes wording on how to clarify the meaning of placebo and of non-inferiority studies, the importance of individual participants' data sharing, and the impossibility of knowing in advance how the data might be used in future studies. Finally, it presents general suggestions on wording, format, and length of the information sheet.

CONCLUSIONS

The matrix underlines the importance of improving the process of communication, its proper conditions (space, time, setting), and addresses the participants' lack of knowledge on how clinical research is conducted. It can be easily applied to a specific setting and could be a useful tool to identify the appropriate informed consent format for any study. The matrix is mainly intended to support multicentre interventional randomized clinical studies, but several suggestions also apply to non-interventional research.

"I Am Sure That They Use My PROM Data for Something Important." A Qualitative Study About Patients' Experiences From a Hematologic Outpatient Clinic

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice have the potential to contribute to and support shared decision-making processes by giving voice to patient concerns during consultations. However, the perspectives of patients diagnosed with chronic hematologic cancer on the use of PROMs are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe how patients diagnosed with hematologic cancer experience participating in a randomized PROM intervention study, including initial invitation, completion of questionnaires, and outpatient clinic visits.

METHODS

A qualitative conceptual framework guided the study, using Interpretive Description with a focused ethnographic approach to explore patient experiences with PROMs in applied practice. Analysis was inspired by Habermas' social theory of communicative action.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed 3 predominant themes of patient experiences: that PROMs were "In the service of a good cause," "The questions are not really spot on," and "PROMs are sometimes used for something," that is, unknown to the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients' experiences were dominated by the perspective of the healthcare system and by gratitude and imbalanced power relations. During completion of questionnaires, patients struggled to identify with items, and the questionnaires were associated with low content validity. When visiting the outpatient clinic, patients reported that doctors and nurses rarely discussed patients' PROMs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study contributes knowledge of patient experiences of the integration of PROMs in hematologic outpatient clinical practice. Findings can guide further research and improve future implementation of PROMs.

Transparency, trust and minimizing burden to increase recruitment and retention in trials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient perspectives on recruitment and retention in clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of qualitative studies that reported the perspective of adult patients with any health condition who accepted or declined to participate in clinical trials.

RESULTS

Sixty-three articles involving 1681 adult patients were included. Six themes were identified. Four themes reflected barriers: ambiguity of context and benefit - patients were unaware of the research question and felt pressured in making decisions; lacking awareness of opportunities - some believed health professionals obscured trials opportunities, or felt confused because of language barriers; wary of added burden - patients were without capacity because of sickness or competing priorities; and skepticism, fear and mistrust - patients feared loss of privacy, were suspicious of doctor's motivation, afraid of being a guinea pig, and disengaged from not knowing outcomes. Two themes captured facilitators: building confidence - patients hoped for better treatment, were supported from family members and trusted medical staff; and social gains and belonging to the community - altruism, a sense of belonging and peer encouragement motivated participation in trials.

CONCLUSION

Improving the visibility and transparency of trials, supporting informed decision making, minimizing burden, and ensuring confidence and trust may improve patient participation in trials.

Online monitoring of patient self-reported adverse events in early phase clinical trials: Views from patients, clinicians, and trial staff

BACKGROUND/AIMS

New classes of cancer drugs bring a range of unknown and undesirable adverse events. Adverse event monitoring is essential in phase I trials to assess toxicity and safety. In phase II, the focus is also on efficacy but robust data on adverse events continue to inform the safety and the adverse event profile. Standard, clinician-led monitoring has been shown to underestimate patients' symptoms. Hence, patient-reported adverse event monitoring has been argued to complement and improve the information on adverse events in early phase clinical trials. With advances in information technology, real-time patient self-reported adverse events in trials are feasible. This study explored the experiences and procedures for reporting adverse events in early phase trials among patients, clinical staff, and trial staff, and their views on using an electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event system in this setting.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients, purposively sampled across ages, gender, and different phases of trials, and with clinical and trial-related staff involved in early phase trials (e.g. consultants, research nurses, hospital-based trial assistants/data managers, trial unit management staff). Interviews explored patient experiences and views on current adverse event reporting processes and electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting. Framework analysis techniques were used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Interviewees were from two hospital trusts with early phase portfolios in England and a trial unit, and included sixteen patients, five consultants, four research nurses, five hospital-based trial staff, and two trial unit staff. Interviews identified three key themes (patient experiences, data flow, and views on electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting). Stakeholders emphasised the intensity of trials for patients and the importance of extensive information provision within the uncertainty of early phase trial drugs. Regular face-to-face appointments for patients supplemented by telephone contact aimed to capture any adverse events. Delayed or under-reporting of mild- or low-severity symptoms was evident among patients. Hospital-based staff highlighted the challenges of current data collection including intense timescales, monitoring by trial sponsors, and high workload. Positive views on electronic patient-reported outcome adverse events highlighted that this could provide a more comprehensive and accurate view on the side effects of new drugs. Clinical staff emphasised patient safety and the need for clear responsibilities for monitoring. The need for careful decision-making about data flow and symptom attribution was highlighted; with trial unit staff emphasising the need for clinician review.

CONCLUSION

Technology advances mean it is timely to explore the benefits and challenges of electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting. This is a complex area warranting further consideration within the trial community. We have developed an online patient self-reporting tool and a small pilot with early phase trial patients is underway.

A Palliative Care Intervention for Patients on Phase 1 Studies

Background: Phase 1 clinical trials remain vital for oncology care. Patients on these trials require supportive care for quality-of-life (QOL) concerns. Objective: To test a Palliative Care Intervention (PCI) for patients with solid tumors enrolled in Phase I therapeutic trials with a priori hypothesis that psychological distress, QOL, satisfaction, symptoms, and resource utilization would be improved in the PCI group. Design: This unblinded randomized trial compared the PCI with usual care in patients accrued to Phase I Clinical Trials. Subjects (n = 479) were followed for 24 weeks, with 12 weeks as the primary outcome. Setting: Two Comprehensive Cancer Centers in the United States. Subjects: A consecutive sample, 21 years or older, English fluency, with solid tumors initiating a Phase 1 trial. Measurements: Psychological Distress (Distress Thermometer), QOL total and subscales (FACT-G), satisfaction (FAM-CARE), survival, and resource utilization (chart audit). Results: PCI subjects showed improved Psychological Distress (-0.47, p = 0.015) and Emotional Well-Being (0.81, p = 0.045), with differences on variables of QOL and distress between sites. High rates of symptom-management admissions (41.3%) and low rates of Advance Directive completion (39.0%), and hospice enrollment (30.7%), despite a median survival in both groups of 10.1 months from initiating a Phase 1 study. Conclusions: A nurse-delivered PCI can improve some QOL outcomes and distress for patients participating in Phase 1 trials. Greater integration of PC is needed to provide quality care to these patients and to support transitions from treatment to supportive care, especially at the end of life. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01612598.

Clinical Trials: Understanding Patient Perspectives and Beliefs About Treatment

BACKGROUND

Understanding the experiences of patients with solid tumors who are in phase 1 clinical trials can help nurses to provide optimal care.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to describe patient perspectives of participating in a phase 1 trial and understanding their disease status and treatment options. In addition, the authors describe the impact of the disease and clinical trial participation on quality of life.

METHODS

30 patients were interviewed and audio recorded; the interviews were transcribed and content analysis methods were used to identify common themes.

FINDINGS

Patients reported participating in the phase 1 clinical trial because their doctors informed and encouraged them, they had no other treatment options if they wanted to live longer, or they wanted to help future patients with cancer. Most believed that participation would improve or stabilize their illness and quality of life. They believed that, when the clinical trial ended, there would be new treatments. Participants reported that healthcare providers and family members provided support, and that compassion, cultural awareness, spiritual support, and the need for individual attention were important.

Older Persons' and Their Caregivers' Perspectives and Experiences of Research Participation With Impaired Decision-Making Capacity: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Human research ethics statements support equitable inclusion of diverse groups. Yet older people are under-represented in clinical research, especially those with impaired decision-making capacity. The aim of this study was to identify perspectives and experiences of older persons and their caregivers of research participation with impaired decision-making capacity.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Scoping review of literature and online sources in January-February 2019 (updated June 2020) according to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. English-language peer-reviewed research articles and Australian online narratives were included. Data were tabulated and narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

From 4171 database records and 93 online resources, 22 articles (2000-2019, 82% United States, 16 first authors) and one YouTube webinar (2018) were initially included; updated searches yielded an additional article (2020) and YouTube webinar (2020). Studies were heterogeneous in terminology, methods and foci, with hypothetical scenarios, quantitative analyses and examination of proxy consent predominating. Participants (n=7331) were older persons (71%), caregivers of older persons with dementia/cognitive impairment (23%) and older persons with dementia/cognitive impairment (6%). Synthesis identified two themes: willingness to participate and decision-making approaches.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Research participation by older persons with dementia may be optimized through reducing risks and burdens and increasing benefits for participants, greater consumer input into study development, and shared and supported decision-making. Older persons' and caregivers' perspectives and experiences of research participation with impaired decision-making capacity require investigation in a greater range of countries and conditions other than dementia, and dissemination through more varied media.

Integrating Palliative Care for Patients on Clinical Trials: Opportunities for Oncology Nurses

The purpose of this article is to describe the lessons learned in the course of a 5-year research study on a palliative care intervention for persons on a Phase 1 clinical trial. Patients who are participating in Phase 1 trials and the families who care for them may be especially vulnerable and require special attention. The patients are generally experiencing the effects of advanced disease, and they also may soon experience unknown side effects, intense treatment regimens, and the emotional stress of an uncertain future as a result of clinical trial participation. Oncology nurses in all roles including clinical trials/research nurses, clinicians, educators, and advanced practice registered nurses play a critical role in addressing the quality-of-life concerns in this population. Palliative care can provide better symptom control and information on treatment options and facilitate a better understanding of patient/family goals. Attending to these factors can ultimately mean improved survival for the advanced cancer patient, and support for these patients can assist in advancing the field of oncology as these investigational therapies hold the promise for enhancing survival.

Are cancer patients better off if they participate in clinical trials? A mixed methods study

Background

Research and cancer care are closely intertwined; however, it is not clear whether physicians and nurses believe that clinical trials offer the best treatment for patients and, if so, whether this belief is justified. The aim of this study was therefore: (i) to explore how physicians and nurses perceive the benefits of clinical trial participation compared with standard care and (ii) whether it is justified to claim that clinical trial participation improves outcomes for cancer patients.

Methods

A mixed methods approach was used employing semi-structured interviews with 57 physicians and nurses in oncology and haematology and a literature review of the evidence for trial superiority, i.e. the idea that receiving treatment in a clinical trial leads to a better outcome compared with standard care. Inductive thematic analysis was used to examine the interview data. A literature review comprising nine articles was conducted according to a conceptual framework developed by Peppercorn et al. and evaluated recent evidence on trial superiority.

Results

Our findings show that many physicians and nurses make claims supporting trial superiority, however very little evidence is available in the literature comparing outcomes for trial participants and non-participants that supports their assertions.

Conclusions

Despite the recent rapid development and use of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, we find no support for trial participation to provide better outcomes for cancer patients than standard care. Hence, our present results are in line with previous results from Peppercorn et al. A weaker version of the superiority claim is that even if a trial does not bring about a direct positive effect, it brings about indirect positive effects. However, as the value of such indirect effects is dependent on the individual’s specific circumstances and preferences, their existence cannot establish the general claim that treatment in trials is superior. Belief in trial superiority is therefore unfounded. Hence, if such beliefs are communicated to patients in a trial recruitment context, it would provide misleading information. Instead emphasis should be on patients volunteering to give an altruistic contribution to the furthering of knowledge and to the potential benefit of future patients.

Spirituality in cancer patients on phase 1 clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

Patients with cancer who are at a transition to Phase I investigational treatments have been identified as an underserved population with regard to palliative care. This disease transition is often accompanied by spiritual and existential concerns. The study objective was to conduct a secondary analysis of data from a larger study testing a palliative care intervention. This paper reports the findings of this secondary focus on the spiritual needs of this population.

METHODS

Patients (n = 479) were accrued to this study prior to initiating a Phase I clinical trial with data collected at baseline, and 4, 12, and 24 week follow-up.

RESULTS

Qualitative data revealed that the transition to Phase 1 trial participation is a time of balancing hope for extended life with the reality of advancing disease. Quantitative results demonstrated increased spirituality over time in both religious- and non-religious-affiliated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients entering Phase I trials have important spiritual needs as they face treatment decisions, advancing disease, and often mortality. Spiritual care should be provided to seriously ill patients as a component of quality care.

Motivations and Decision-Making of Adult Sickle Cell Patients in High-Risk Clinical Research

Potentially curative but high-risk trials of gene therapy or stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) for sickle cell disease (SCD) pose new opportunities for adults with SCD, many of whom experience significant disease burden and complications with few treatment options, as well as stigma and disparities in care. We explored motivations and decision-making processes of enrollees and decliners of such trials. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 20 enrollees and 6 decliners. Interviews explored participants' SCD experiences, motivations, and decision-making about trial participation, understanding of research-related information, and retrospective reflections. Interviews were analyzed with content analysis. Most identified the purpose of research, risks, and uncertainties of participation. Both enrollees and decliners described deliberative weighing of study risks and potential benefits (especially the prospect of a cure), with heavy factoring of their SCD status, experiences, and desire for a better life. Despite the influence of spirituality/religion and support of family and friends, all described the decision about participation as their own. In some patients, the primary outcome status defined by the trial did not match the patients' perceived outcomes. Patients with negative experiences expressed a desire for greater emphasis on risks and possible outcomes during informed consent. This cohort of adults with SCD were thoughtfully deliberative in their decisions about gene therapy or PBSCT trials. Future participants' decision-making may be enhanced by emphasizing that "successful" scientific outcomes can still involve complications or symptoms and be facilitated by referrals to former research participants and anticipatory discussions.

Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators

BACKGROUND

Understanding why people take part in health research is critical to improve research efficiency and generalisability. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews was to identify psychosocial determinants of research participation and map them to psychological theory and empirical recruitment research, to identify effective strategies to increase research participation.

METHODS

Qualitative and quantitative systematic reviews were systematically identified. No date or language limits were applied. Two reviewers independently selected reviews. Methodological quality was rated using AMSTAR, and poor-quality reviews (scoring 0-3) were excluded. Barriers and facilitators were coded to psychological theory (Theoretical Domains Framework) and empirical recruitment research (recruitment interventions that had been subjected to randomised controlled trial evaluation).

RESULTS

We included 26 systematic reviews (429 unique primary studies), covering a wide range of patient populations and health settings. We identified five groups of facilitators, of which three were dominant (potential for personal benefit, altruism, trust) and appear to be relevant across research setting and design. We identified nine groups of barriers, which were more dependent on the particular study (context, population, design). Two determinants (participant information, social influences) were found to be both barriers and facilitators. Barriers and facilitators could be coded to the Motivation and Opportunity components of the Theoretical Domains Framework; only one was coded to a Capability component. There was some overlap between psychosocial determinants and empirical recruitment research, but some barriers and facilitators had not been tested at all.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying effective recruitment strategies could increase the efficiency and generalisability of primary research. We identified a number of barriers and facilitators that could be addressed by researchers. There is a need for more research to identify effective recruitment strategies that draw on the psychosocial facilitators and barriers identified in this overview.

Special issues raised by evolving areas of clinical research

Each study presents its own set of ethical considerations. Certain kinds of ethical issues are inherent in particular areas of clinical research, regardless of specific ethical questions associated with a specific study. In this chapter, some of the most common special areas of clinical research are presented, highlighting the ethical issues most frequently associated with each.