The views of patients with advanced cancer regarding participation in serial questionnaire studies

A critical analysis of the implementation of service user involvement in primary care research and health service development using normalization process theory

BACKGROUND

There have been recent important advances in conceptualizing and operationalizing involvement in health research and health-care service development. However, problems persist in the field that impact on the scope for meaningful involvement to become a routine - normalized - way of working in primary care. In this review, we focus on current practice to critically interrogate factors known to be relevant for normalization - definition, enrolment, enactment and appraisal.

METHOD

Ours was a multidisciplinary, interagency team, with community representation. We searched EBSCO host for papers from 2007 to 2011 and engaged in an iterative, reflexive approach to sampling, appraising and analysing the literature following the principles of a critical interpretive synthesis approach and using Normalization Process Theory.

FINDINGS

Twenty-six papers were chosen from 289 papers, as a purposeful sample of work that is reported as service user involvement in the field. Few papers provided a clear working definition of service user involvement. The dominant identified rationale for enrolling service users in primary care projects was linked with policy imperatives for co-governance and emancipatory ideals. The majority of methodologies employed were standard health services research methods that do not qualify as research with service users. This indicates a lack of congruence between the stated aims and methods. Most studies only reported positive outcomes, raising questions about the balance or completeness of the published appraisals.

CONCLUSION

To improve normalization of meaningful involvement in primary care, it is necessary to encourage explicit reporting of definitions, methodological innovation to enhance co-governance and dissemination of research processes and findings.

The effects of cancer research participation on patient experience: a mixed-methods analysis

Patient-reported benefits of research participation have been described by study participants; however, many studies have small sample sizes or are limited to patient groups with poor prognoses. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of research participation on patient experience using survey responses from a large, national sample of cancer patients (N = 66 462) and interviews with breast cancer patients attending a London trust. Multivariate logistic regression was used to investigate associations between taking part in research and positive patient experience. Based on our analysis, patients who participated in research were more likely to rate their overall care and treatment as 'very good/excellent' (OR_adj :1.64, 95%CI: 1.53-1.76, P < 0.001) and to describe positive patient experiences, such as better access to non-standard care, better interactions with staff and being treated as an individual. However, findings from our interviews indicated that there was no common understanding of what constitutes cancer research and no clear delineation between research participation and standard care, from the patient perspective. Further work to explore how participation positively influences patient experience would be useful to develop strategies to improve care and treatment for all patients regardless of whether or not they choose, or have the opportunity, to take part in research.

Patient, caregiver, health professional and researcher views and experiences of participating in research at the end of life: a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature

Background

The development of the evidence-base informing end of life (EoL) care is hampered by the assumption that patients at the EoL are too vulnerable to participate in research. This study aims to systematically and critically review the evidence regarding the experiences and views of patients, caregivers, professionals and researchers about participation in EoL care research, and to identify best practices in research participation.

Methods

We searched seven electronic databases, and hand searched three journals and the bibliographies of relevant papers. Inclusion criteria were original research papers on involvement in EoL care research or its impact on participants. Critical interpretive synthesis was used to integrate the whole body of empirical evidence on this topic and generate theoretical categories from the evidence.

Results

Of a total of 239 identified studies, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria, from: the US (11), the UK (6) and Australia (3). Most focused on patients with cancer (12) and were conducted in hospices (9) or hospitals (7). Studies enquired about issues related to: EoL care research in general (5), specific research methods (13), and trial research (2). The studies evaluating willingness to participate in EoL care research showed positive outcomes across the different parties involved in research. Factors influencing willingness were mainly physical and cognitive impairment. Participating in research was a positive experience for most patients and carers but a minority experienced distress. This was related to: characteristics of the participants; the type of research; or the way it was conducted. Participatory study designs were found particularly suitable for enabling the inclusion of a wide range of participants.

Conclusion

The evidence explored within this study demonstrates that the ethical concerns regarding patient participation in EoL care research are often unjustified. However, research studies in EoL care require careful design and execution that incorporates sensitivity to participants’ needs and concerns to enable their participation. An innovative conceptual model for research participation relevant for potentially vulnerable people was developed.

Cancer patients' and clinicians' opinions on the best time in secondary care to approach patients for recruitment to longitudinal questionnaire-based research

PURPOSE

A priority of the UK National Cancer Survivorship Initiative is to increase collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) longitudinally post-diagnosis. This study aimed to gather cancer patients' and clinicians' opinions and preferences about the best time, in the secondary care pathway, to approach patients about joining longitudinal observational PROMs-based (LO-PROMs) research.

METHODS

The sample comprised 15 patients with non-metastatic breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, and 15 clinicians including surgeons, oncologists and nurse specialists. Patients and clinicians participated in one face-to-face topic-guided audio-recorded interview. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Patients did not want to be approached about LO-PROMs research early in the care pathway, near diagnosis and treatment planning or before any surgery and its results. Patients felt that LO-PROMs research is best introduced from the time people are 'settled' on (post-surgical) treatment regimens, provided they are coping well emotionally and not experiencing significant physical side effects; patients emphasised variability in people's experience of and response to cancer and treatment. Clinicians also advised against approach near diagnosis, although generally recommended initiating recruitment somewhat sooner than patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients expressed strong homogeneous preferences and ideally wanted to be approached about LO-PROMs research when their initial fears and anxiety about cancer treatment and survival had diminished, and they felt some sense of certainty and optimism about the future. As the timeline of clinical events varies, maximising recruitment may mean approaching patients at varied time points post-diagnosis. Further recruitment implications are discussed.

Methodological challenges in researching psychological distress and psychiatric morbidity among patients with advanced cancer: what does the literature (not) tell us?

Patients with advanced cancer experience multiple demands and losses that place them at risk for experiencing psychological distress. Researchers can face challenges in conducting research among this population because of their poor levels of physical and cognitive functioning. This paper aims to develop our understanding of these challenges. A systematic literature review was conducted of papers describing surveys in which a stated aim was to measure rates of psychological distress or psychiatric morbidity among patients with advanced cancer. We also included papers that focused on the development of assessment tools. Studies were identified through computerized (MEDLINE and PsycINFO) and manual searches for the years 1995-2009. Twenty-eight papers met the inclusion criteria. They describe findings in relation to a total of 3942 patients. The sample sizes ranged from 25 to 422 (median = 87). The main methodological challenge identified is the recruitment of large and representative samples. Significant portions of the advanced cancer population are excluded from distress studies or are refusing to take part. In conclusion, researchers can enhance the methodological knowledge base by presenting more detailed accounts of the participant recruitment and data collection processes. Future researchers should strive to develop more flexible methods of assessing distress among patients with advanced disease.

Participation of older newly-diagnosed cancer patients in an observational prospective pilot study: an example of recruitment and retention

Background

There have been few prospective observational studies which recruited older newly-diagnosed cancer patients, and of these only some have reported information on the number needed to screen to recruit their study sample, and the number and reasons for refusal and drop-out. This paper reports on strategies to recruit older newly-diagnosed cancer patients prior to treatment into an observational prospective pilot study and to retain them during a six-month period.

Methods

Medical charts of all patients in the Segal Cancer Centre aged 65 and over were screened and evaluated for inclusion. Several strategies to facilitate recruitment and retention were implemented. Reasons for exclusion, refusal and loss to follow-up were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to report the reasons for refusal and loss to follow-up. A non-response analysis using chi-square tests and t-tests was conducted to compare respondents to those who refused to participate and to compare those who completed the study to those who were lost to follow-up. A feedback form with open-ended questions was administered following the last interview to obtain patient's opinions on the length of the interviews and conduct of this pilot study.

Results

3060 medical charts were screened and 156 eligible patients were identified. Of these 112 patients participated for a response rate of 72%. Reasons for refusal were: feeling too anxious (40%), not interested (25%), no time (12.5%), too sick (5%) or too healthy (5%) or other reasons (5%). Ninety-one patients participated in the six-month follow-up (retention 81.3%), seven patients refused follow-up (6.2%) and fourteen patients died (12.5%) during the course of the study. The median time to conduct the baseline interview was 45 minutes and 57% of baseline interviews were conducted at home. Most patients enjoyed participation and only five felt that the interviews were too long.

Conclusion

It was feasible to recruit newly-diagnosed cancer patients prior to treatment although it required considerable time and effort. Once patients were included, the retention rate was high despite the fact that most were undergoing active cancer treatment.