What matters in clinical trial decision‐making: a systematic review of interviews exploring cancer patients’ experiences

A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators impacting patient enrolment in clinical trials for lung cancer

PURPOSE

Clinical research trials are needed to enhance the medical care and treatment for lung cancer, which remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. While clinical trials allow for the development of novel therapies to treat cancer, the recruitment of lung cancer patients to trials is low. This review aimed to identify and synthesise the available literature concerning barriers and facilitators affecting lung cancer patients' decisions to enrol in clinical trials to guide future cancer research efforts.

METHODS

Four databases were systematically searched: Academic Search Complete, CINHAL, PubMed, and PsycINFO in August 2023. A supplemental grey literature search was also conducted alongside this. Articles were quality appraised using CASP and JMI checklists, and results were narratively synthesised.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles of varied design met the inclusion criteria, and results were mapped onto the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) Model to help structure and conceptualise review findings. Evidence suggests that the decision to enrol in a trial is multifaceted and informed by: when and how study information is presented, travel and trial eligibility, and altruistic hopes and fears.

CONCLUSIONS

There is need to address the many different concerns that lung cancer patients have about participating in a clinical trial through the supply of accessible and timely trial information, and via the reduction of travel, expansion of study eligibility criteria, and recognition of a person's altruistic wishes, hopes, fears, and family-oriented concerns. Future research should aim to work alongside lung cancer patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders to increase research accessibility.

Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care: A systematic review and metasynthesis

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is a key element of person-centred care and promoted as the favoured model in preference-sensitive decision-making. Limitations to implementation have been observed, and barriers and limitations, both generally and in the palliative setting, have been highlighted. More knowledge about the process of shared decision-making in palliative cancer care would assist in addressing these limitations.

AIM

To identify and synthesise qualitative data on how people with cancer, informal carers and healthcare professionals experience and perceive shared decision-making in palliative cancer care.

DESIGN

A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies. We analysed data using inductive thematic analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus) from inception until June 2023, supplemented by backward searches.

RESULTS

We identified and included 23 studies, reported in 26 papers. Our analysis produced four analytical themes; (1) Overwhelming situation of 'no choice', (2) Processes vary depending on the timings and nature of the decisions involved, (3) Patient-physician dyad is central to decision-making, with surrounding support and (4) Level of involvement depends on interactions between individuals and systems.

CONCLUSION

Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care is a complex process of many decisions in a challenging, multifaceted and evolving situation where equipoise and choice are limited. Implications for practice: Implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice requires (1) clarifying conceptual confusion, (2) including members of the interprofessional team in the shared decision-making process and (3) adapting the approach to the ambiguous, existential situations which arise in palliative cancer care.

Exploring patient-reported barriers to participating in proton therapy clinical trials

Introduction

Clinical trials lead the progress in healthcare. To ensure reliable research conclusions, it is essential to enroll diverse patient groups. Identifying and understanding patient-reported barriers to clinical trials may help enhance recruitment among diverse patient groups.The clinical potential of proton therapy (PT) to reduce late effects is being investigated in clinical trials worldwide. Thus, for some patients, PT is only accessible by participating in clinical trials.Individuals with smoking-related head and neck cancer (HNC) are sometimes socioeconomically deprived, leading to barriers to trial participation. This study aims to identify barriers to their participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving PT.

Method

Interviews were conducted with 14 HNC patients declining participation in an RCT involving PT. The interviews were transcribed and systematically analysed using an inductive approach identifying categories and themes.

Results

The identified barriers to RCT-participation are: (1) existential distress, which influenced participants' mental and cognitive capacities, (2) insufficient RCT-related knowledge arising from information overload during clinical consultations, (3) the wish for safety and familiarity during the treatment trajectory, particularly for participants needing accommodation during  radiotherapy, and (4) the motivation for study participation was impacted by uncertainty due to randomisation and clinical equipoise. Existential distress is identified as an overarching theme because it influences and amplifies the other three themes.

Conclusion

Existential distress is a central theme that influences and amplifies other participation barriers in PT RCTs. It affects participants' comprehension of trial information, their preference for familiar environments, and their motivation to participate in clinical trials.

Communication, Cognition and Competency Development in Healthcare: A Model for Integrating Cognitive Ethnography and Communication Skills Training in Clinical Interventions

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to conduct and evaluate the Blended Learning communication skills training program. The key objective was to investigate (i) how clinical intervention studies can be designed to include cognitive, organizational, and interactive processes, and (ii) how researchers and practitioners could work with integrated methods to support the desired change.

METHODS

The method combined design and implementation of a 12-week Blended Learning communication skills training program based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide. The training was implemented in a patient clinic at a Danish university hospital and targeted all healthcare professionals at the clinic. Cognitive ethnography was used to document and evaluate healthcare professionals' implementation and individual competency development, and support the design of in-situ simulation training scenarios.

RESULTS

Thirteen participants completed the program. The synergy within the teams, as well as the opportunities for participants to coordinate, share, discuss, and reflect on the received knowledge with a colleague or on-site researcher, affected learning positively. The knowledge transfer process was affected by negative feedback loops, such as time shortages, issues with concept development and transfer, disjuncture between the expectations of participants and instructors of the overall course structure, as well as participant insecurity and a gradual loss of motivation and compliance.

CONCLUSION

We propose a novel 3-step model for clinical interventions based on our findings and literature review. This model will effectively support the implementation of educational interventions in health care by narrowing the theory-practice gap. It will also stimulate desired change in individual behavior and organizational culture over time. Furthermore, it will work for the benefit of the clinic and may be more suitable for the implementation of communication projects than, for example, randomized setups.

Development of a Japanese Scale that Evaluates the Level of Nursing Support Provided to Patients for Decision-Making in Cancer Clinical Trials

Clinical nurses need learning programs that are useful in nursing support for patients' decision-making (NSPDM) regarding cancer clinical trials (CCTs). The usefulness of the learning program can be evaluated if the practices of NSPDM before and after participation in the learning program can be compared. We developed a scale to measure the level of self-assessed NSPDM regarding participation in a CCT. Thirty-two items of scale were developed in Japanese based on previous literature. Based on the results of a pilot study, items with similar meanings were removed and the validity of the 26 scale items was statistically examined in terms of construct validity and reliability. The study population was clinical nurses and included clinical research nurses. We received 102 valid responses from clinical nurses. Based on the bias of the boxplot distribution and the ceiling and floor effects for the items analysis of the 26-item draft scale, 17 items remained. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed that the scale consisted of three subscales and 17 items. Regarding fit indices of the model, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted GFI (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of application (RMSEA) were 0.775, 0.704, 0.477, and 0.081, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the overall scale was 0.951, with subscales ranging from 0.820 to 0.942. The validity and reliability of this scale were acceptable. This scale may be helpful to evaluate the usefulness of learning programs, i.e., the practice level of NSPDM.

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 communication and experiences in cancer clinical drug trials: a mixed-method study at a specialist clinical trials unit

BACKGROUND

As cancer therapies increase in their complexity, effective communication among patients, physicians, and research staff is critical for optimal clinical trial management. Currently, we understand little about on-trial communication practices and patient trial experiences over time. This mixed-method study explored patient experiences of participating in a clinical drug trial at different time points, focussing on patient communication with trial staff.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in clinical drug trials conducted at the Parkville Cancer Clinical Trials Unit were invited to complete a tailored online survey and/or a qualitative interview. Patients were recruited to three cohorts based on time since the first trial treatment: new (≥ 1 to ≤ 13 weeks), mid- (≥ 14 to ≤ 26 weeks), and long-term (≥ 52 weeks) trial patients. Descriptive statistics were calculated for survey responses. Interview data were analysed thematically with a team-based approach. Survey and interview data were integrated at the intepretation stage.

RESULTS

From May to June 2021, 210 patients completed a survey (response rate 64%, 60% male), 20 completed interviews (60% male), and 18 completed both. More long-term trial patients (46%) participated than new (29%) and mid-trial patients (26%). Survey data showed high (> 90%) patient satisfaction with the provision of trial information and communication with trial staff across trial stages, and many reported trial experiences as above and beyond standard care. Interview data indicated that written trial information could be overwhelming, and verbal communication with the staff and physicians was highly valued, especially for enrolment and side effect management among long-term patients. Patients described the key points along the clinical trial trajectory that merit close attention: clear and well-communicated randomisation practices, reliable pathways for side effect reporting and prompt response from the trial staff, and end-of-trial transition management to avoid a sense of abandonment.

CONCLUSION

Patients reported high overall satisfaction with trial management but outlined key pinch points requiring improved communication practices. Establishing a range of effective communication practices among trial staff and physicians with patients in cancer clinical trials may have a wide range of positive effects on patient accrual, retention, and satisfaction.

"If only I had", patients' experiences during early oncology trials

PURPOSE

Until today, it is not clear why patients decide to continue with early clinical trial (ECT) participation. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore to which extent the self-determination theory of Ryan and Deci, according to the ECT enrollment phase, corresponds to the motivations of participants during ECT's.

METHODS

This study has a qualitative design. Data were collected using semistructured interviews and were deductively analyzed in Nvivo12 using the thematic analysis approach of Braun and Clarke.

RESULTS

As a result of the deductive analysis performed, six themes and twenty subthemes emerged which matched the three personal needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy (n = 11). "Competence" included the following themes: mixed future expectations, treatment expectations, and control of the outcome. "Relatedness" included the theme altruistic motivation. "Autonomy" included the themes; to live and act in harmony as well as mental and physical burden.

CONCLUSION

Participants felt they tried everything and that they were treated to the limit. This not only gives the motivation to continue participating but also a sense of altruism. Despite different burdens, side-effects, and the feeling of being a test subject, the participants will not easily choose to stop participation in order to prevent saying afterwards: "If only I had".

Facilitators and Barriers to Older Adult Participation in Cancer Trials: A Qualitative Study Exploring Patient-Caregiver Dyad Congruence

PURPOSE

Family caregivers play an integral role in caring for older adults with cancer. Few studies have examined older adults with cancer and their family caregivers as a unit in a relationship or a dyad. Dyad congruence, or consistency in perspective, is relevant to numerous aspects of living with cancer, including the decision to enroll in a cancer clinical trial.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews of 32 older women (age ≥ 70 years) with breast cancer and their family caregivers (16 dyads) were conducted at both academic and community settings from December 2019 to March 2021 to explore perceived facilitators and barriers to cancer trials. Dyad congruence was defined as aligned (matching) perspectives, and incongruence was defined as misaligned (nonmatching) perspectives.

RESULTS

Five (31%) of 16 patients were age ≥80 years, 11 (69%) had nonmetastatic breast cancer, and 14 (88%) were treated in an academic setting. Six (38%) of 16 caregivers were in the 50-59 age group, 10 (63%) were female, and seven (44%) were daughters. Dyad congruence centered on the clinical benefit of trials and physician recommendation. However, compared with caregivers, patients were more motivated to contribute to science. Patients and caregivers also differed on the perceived extent to which the caregiver influenced enrollment.

CONCLUSION

Older patients with cancer and their caregivers generally agree about the facilitators and barriers to cancer trial enrollment, but some perceptions are misaligned. Further research is needed to understand whether misaligned perspectives between patients and caregivers influence clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer.

Understanding the experiences of cancer patients referred for a clinical trial during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic affected cancer patients regardless of the stage of their diagnosis or treatment.

AIMS

To understand the experiences of cancer patients who were referred for a clinical trial at that time.

METHOD

Cancer patients who attended their initial research outpatient appointment to discuss the possibility of taking part in a clinical trial were asked to complete the Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment questionnaire, and take part in semi-structured interviews.

FINDINGS

Data indicated that, on average, patients had moderate levels of anxiety. Three major themes emerged from patients' interviews, which gave an insight into what they experienced during this challenging period.

CONCLUSION

This study gives an insight into the experiences of cancer patients who were referred for a clinical trial at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It illustrated the impact of social distancing and the effect of virus-related fear on cancer patients' mental health.

Hope and meaning-making in phase 1 oncology trials: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence on patient-participant experiences

Background

Phase 1 drug trials are popular treatment options for patients with advanced disease, despite the greater levels of uncertainty associated with them. However, their meaning and consequences for patient-participants remains under-explored. This review synthesises the qualitative evidence of patients’ experiences of participating in phase 1 oncology trials, exploring their decisions to take part and the impacts of these trials on patient wellbeing.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search involving medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords was undertaken in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL, with supplementary searches also conducted. Studies were independently screened for inclusion by two researchers. Included studies were critically appraised and data extracted using standardised forms. Qualitative results were analysed using thematic synthesis.

Results

Three main themes were identified across 13 studies: decision-making and joining the trial; experiences of taking part in the trial and hope and coping. Patients primarily joined trials hoping for therapeutic benefits, sentiments which prevailed and shaped their experiences across their trial journey. Rather than indicate therapeutic misconception based on poor understanding, patient perspectives more commonly pointed to differences between hope and expectation and cultural narratives of staying positive, trying everything and trusting in experts.

Conclusions

These findings challenge information-based models of consent, favouring coping frameworks which account for the role of hope and meaning-making during serious illness. Personalised consideration of existential and quality-of-life matters before and during trials is recommended, including palliative and supportive care alternatives to active treatment.

Review Registration

The review was registered with PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD 42020163250).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06306-9.

"It All Depends": Patient and Decision Partner Experiences in Cancer Clinical Trial Decision-Making

While the supporting role of families and friends has been widely recognized in cancer care, little data exist on how they influence patients' decisions regarding clinical trial participation, accounting for patients' decisional preferences. The goal of our study was to examine the process of clinical trial decision-making from the perspective of adults with cancer and their decision partners. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 12 decision partners-family and friends engaged in the medical decision-making. Themes included: (1) having the ability and confidence to make decisions; (2) gaining insight about clinical trials; (3) trusting someone in the process; and (4) realizing readiness and context. Our findings will enhance understanding of how patients make clinical trial decisions based on decisional preferences from the perspectives of patients and decision partners. The findings may also help to increase clinician awareness and inclusion of decision partners in conversations regarding clinical trials.

Patients' experiences of the decision-making process for clinical trial participation

Clinical decision‐making about participating in a clinical trial is a complex process influenced by overwhelming information about prognosis, disease, and treatment options. The study aimed to explore patients' experiences of the decision‐making process when patients are presented with the opportunity to participate in a cancer clinical trial and to shed light on how patients experience the health communication, the nurse's role, and the physician's role. A qualitative study design was applied. Nine patients with advanced cancer were interviewed after being informed about their treatment options. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The results showed that patients made treatment decisions mainly guided by their emotions and trust in the physician. Furthermore, the physicians had a great impact on the decisions, and the nurse's role was associated with conversations about how to manage life. The study highlights the importance of talking about prognosis and addressing the patient's existential issues, particularly in this context of advanced cancer. The study elucidates a need for healthcare professionals to engage in health communication about life when it is coming to an end.

Exploring the Motivational Drivers of Young Adults with Diabetes for Participation in Kidney Research

Understanding motivational drivers and barriers to patient participation in diabetes research are important to ensure research is relevant and valuable. Young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) completed a 31-question qualitative survey evaluating participant experience, understanding, and motivators and barriers to research involvement. A total of 35 participants, 19–28 years of age, 60% female, completed the survey. Motivating factors included personal benefit, relationship with the study team, curiosity, financial compensation, altruism, and nostalgia. Older participants (>22 years) reported higher levels of trust in the study team (p = 0.02) and their relationship with the study team positively influenced their decision to participate (p = 0.03). Financial compensation was a strong motivator for participants with higher education (p = 0.02). Age, sex, education level, and trust in the study team influenced participants’ understanding. Barriers included logistics and lack of familial support. Important motivational drivers and barriers to participation in research by young adults with T1D must be considered to increase research engagement and facilitate the discovery of new knowledge.

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.

FGFR inhibitors in elderly patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: an unsolved issue

Background: Despite recent advances in the understanding of the molecular landscape of biliary tract cancer (BTC), advanced disease continues to carry a poor prognosis, and the benefit from systemic treatments remains modest. However, BTCs have emerged as malignancies harboring specific potentially druggable aberrations, and thus, several molecularly targeted treatments have been recently tested. Among these, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors have shown interesting results in previously treated BTC patients with advanced diseaseAreas covered: In this review, we aimed to provide an overview of available evidence on FGFR inhibitors in elderly patients with metastatic BTC, especially focusing on subgroup analyses of recently published trials exploring this novel therapeutic approach in these aggressive malignancies.Expert opinion: The FGFR1, FGFR2, and FGFR3 inhibitor pemigatinib has been recently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in metastatic BTCs harboring FGFR2 fusion or other rearrangement. However, few data are available regarding the use of FGFR inhibitors in elderly BTCs, a patient population that remains seriously under-represented in clinical trials.

When life gives you no choice: Context of decision-making when offered an oncology clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced cancer are faced with a wide variety of challenges and difficult treatment decisions made while in a vulnerable life-threatening situation, including decisions about clinical trial participation. Internationally, there is a great focus on shared decision-making as a way to help patients and healthcare professionals to make informed decisions together; nevertheless, research focusing on patient experiences shows that information about clinical trials is insufficient in supporting patients to make trial decisions in the context of their course of disease and managing life with advanced cancer.

AIM

To explore where and how decisions about participation in oncology clinical trials are made and the role of the patients and healthcare professionals.

METHODS

Participant observation was used as a qualitative research method to gain knowledge about decision-making in different clinical situations. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four themes were developed: (a) preformed decisions, (b) dissimilar perceptions of successful treatment, (c) cues and concerns stated by patients and (d) creating common ground.

CONCLUSION

There are underexposed aspects to be aware of in the decision-making process for clinical trial participation. Preformed decisions made by the physicians before the encounter with patients seemed to narrow down the patients' options and could have benefited from including the patients' views. Cues and concerns stated by patients were often neglected. However, when physicians talked with the patients about truly difficult issues such as treatment expectations, hope and death, it led to another kind of conversation about treatment decisions involving the patients' preferences.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Awareness of preformed decisions and an increased focus on picking up cues and concerns about existential issues in the clinical encounter may improve the quality of the decisions and increase shared decision-making.

Deciding to Enrol in a Cancer Trial: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies

Background

Clinical trials are essential for the advancement of cancer treatments; however, participation by patients is suboptimal. Currently, there is a lack of synthesized qualitative review evidence on the patient experience of trial entry from which to further develop decision support. The aim of this review is to synthesise literature reporting experiences of participants when deciding to enrol in a cancer clinical trial in order to inform practice.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies were conducted to describe the experiences of adult cancer patients who decided to enrol in a clinical trial of an anti-cancer treatment.

Results

Forty studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Three themes were identified representing the overarching domains of experience when deciding to enrol in a cancer trial: 1) need for trial information; (2) trepidation towards participation; and (3) justifying the decision. The process of deciding to enrol in a clinical trial is one marked by uncertainty, emotional distress and driven by the search for a cure.

Conclusion

Findings from this review show that decision support modelled by shared decision-making and the quality of a shared decision needs to be accompanied by tailored or personalised psychosocial and supportive care. Although the decision process bears similarities to theoretical processes outlined in decision-making frameworks, there are a lack of supportive interventions for cancer patients that are adapted to the clinical trial context. Theory-based interventions are urgently required to support the specific needs of patients deciding whether to participate in cancer trials.

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.

Supported decision making for people with mental health disorders in clinical practice: a systematic review

Objectives: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was adopted at the United Nations Assembly in 2006. The main aim of the convention is to ensure equal rights for people with disabilities including the expression of people's own "will and preferences" concerning health treatment. Article 12 demands the respect of a person's "rights, will and preferences" (CRPD) and suggests supported decision making (SDM) when possible. The aim of this review was to gather information regarding the SDM implementation from a clinical perspective for people with mental health disorders.Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on electronic databases MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO using the keywords "supported decision making" and "UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities" in March 2018.Results: Eleven articles were included in the final review, which focussed on three themes: (1) different models of SDM, (2) stakeholder views, and (3) challenges for implementation. A limited number of papers described clinical models that had good theoretical consistency with SDM. The main challenges of implementation related to critical situations when "will and preferences" are poorly understood or appear contradictory. Future studies should assess specific models of SDM implementation, including related outcomes and process measures.