Rethinking the therapeutic misconception: social justice, patient advocacy, and cancer clinical trial recruitment in the US safety net

Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Obtaining written informed consent from participants before enrolment in a study is essential. A previous study showed that only 50% of the participants in clinical trials understood the components of informed consent, and the methods of participants' understanding of informed consent were controversial. This updated meta-analysis aimed to estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand the different informed consent components. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched till April 2023. Therapeutic misconception, ability to name one risk, knowing that treatments were being compared, and understanding the nature of the study, the purpose of the study, the risks and side-effects, the direct benefits, placebo, randomization, voluntariness, freedom to withdraw, the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn from the trial, confidentiality, compensation, or comprehension were evaluated. This meta-analysis included 117 studies (155 datasets; 22,118 participants). The understanding of the risks and side-effects was investigated in the largest number of studies (n = 100), whereas comparehension was investigated in the smallest number (n = 11). The highest proportions were 97.5%(95% confidence interval (CI): 97.1-97.9) for confidentiality, 95.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 95.4-96.4) for compensation, 91.4% (95% CI: 90.7-92.1) for the nature of study, 68.1% (95% CI: 51.6-84.6) for knowing that treatments were being compared, and 67.3% (95% CI: 56.6-78) for voluntary nature of participants. The smallest proportions were the concept of placebo (4.8%, 95%CI: 4.4-5.2) and randomization(39.4%, 95%CI: 38.3-40.4). Our findings suggested that most participants understood the fundamental components of informed consent (study confidentiality, nature, compensation, voluntariness, and freedom to withdraw). The understanding of other components, such as placebo and randomization was less satisfactory.

Maternal mental health research in Malawi: Community and healthcare provider perspectives on acceptability and ethicality

Maternal mental health (MMH) is recognised as globally significant. The prevalence of depression and factors associated with its onset among perinatal women in Malawi has been previously reported, and the need for further research in this domain is underscored. Yet, there is little published scholarship regarding the acceptability and ethicality of MMH research to women and community representatives. The study reported here sought to address this in Malawi by engaging with communities and healthcare providers in the districts where MMH research was being planned. Qualitative data was collected in Lilongwe and Karonga districts through 20 focus group discussions and 40 in-depth interviews with community representatives and healthcare providers from January through April 2021. All focus groups and interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim (in local languages Chichewa and Tumbuka), translated into English, and examined through thematic content analysis. Participants' accounts suggest that biopsychosocial MMH research could be broadly acceptable within the communities sampled, with acceptability framed in part through prior encounters with biomedical and public health research and care in these regions, alongside broader understandings of the import of MMH. Willingness and consent to participate do not depend on specifically biomedical understandings of MMH, but rather on familiarity with individuals regarded as living with mental ill-health. However, the data further suggest some 'therapeutic misconceptions' about MMH research, with implications for how investigations in this area are presented by researchers when recruiting and working with participants. Further studies are needed to explore whether accounts of the acceptability and ethicality of MMH research shift and change during and following research encounters. Such studies will enhance the production of granular recommendations for further augmenting the ethicality of biomedical and public health research and researchers' responsibilities to participants and communities.

Understanding system barriers and facilitators in transnational clinical cancer research: The value of rapid and multimodal ethnographic inquiry

INTRODUCTION

In middle and low resource countries worldwide, up to 70% of breast cancer cases are diagnosed as locally advanced (stages IIB-IIIC). Delays in referral from primary to specialty care have been shown to prolong routes to diagnosis and may be associated with higher burdens of advanced disease, but specific clinical and organizational barriers are not well understood.

METHODS

This article reports on the use of rapid ethnographic research (RER) within a largescale clinical trial for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) in India, Mexico, South Africa, and the US. Our purpose is twofold. First, we demonstrate the value of ethnography as a mode of evaluative listening: appraising the perspectives of diverse patients and clinicians regarding prolonged routes to LABC diagnosis and treatment. Second, we show the value of ethnography as a compass for navigating among discrepant clinical research styles, IRB protocols, and institutional norms and practices. We discuss advantages and limits involved in each use of RER.

RESULTS

On the one hand, ethnographic interviews carried out before and during the clinical trial enabled more regular communication among investigators and research sites. On the other hand, the logistics of doing the trial placed limits on the extent and duration of inductive, immersive inquiry characteristic of traditional fieldwork. As a partial solution to this problem, we developed a multimodal ethnographic research (MER) approach, an augmentation of video-chat, phone, text, and email carried out with, and built upon the initial connections established in, the in-person fieldwork. This style has its limits; but it did allow us to materially improve the ways in which the medical research proceeded.

DISCUSSION

In conclusion, we highlight the value of not deferring to a presumed incommensurability of ethnographic fieldwork and clinical trialwork while still being appropriately responsive to moments when the two approaches should be kept apart.

Chronicity and the patient's decision-making work. The case of an advanced cancer patient

This paper focuses on the particular situation of an advanced cancer patient whose condition has taken a chronic turn. We argue that chronicity of this kind sometimes falls at the frontier of Evidence Based Medicine because the uncertainty about the patient's condition can lead physicians to resort to clinical trials or non-licensed drugs to prevent the disease from progressing. This situation leaves plenty of scope for individual adjustments between patients and their doctors. Advanced cancer is regarded here not just as a biological event but as a chronic illness and a 'negotiated reality'. We argue that the chronicity of advanced cancer patients' situation broadens the patients' scope for 'work', and we have called this specific type of patient's work 'decision-making work'. This paper is based on a case study focusing on Patrick, a middle-aged Frenchman with metastatic lung cancer who underwent oncological treatment for seven years and was strongly determined to find new therapeutic options even if this meant having to go abroad. He actively orchestrated his therapeutic itinerary by reorganising his relationships with the medical world and coordinating the physicians' work. His particular social position enabled Patrick to bypass some of the current medical rules and to reorganise the usual pattern of distribution of medical responsibilities. The chronicity of his condition placed him at the very frontier of the health care system.

Implementation of a Multisite Financial Reimbursement Program in Cancer Clinical Trials Integrated With Patient Navigation: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE:

Cancer clinical trial participants face considerable indirect costs associated with participation, such as travel and lodging, which may contribute to poor enrollment. Here, we report the findings in IMproving Patient Access to Cancer clinical Trials, a pilot feasibility study investigating the efficacy of offering a financial reimbursement program (FRP) during a therapeutic clinical trial discussion with or without additional outreach in improving patient enrollment.

METHODS:

Study participants for this study were recruited at two National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) from April 8, 2019, to September 19, 2019. Eligible participants were adults with a cancer diagnosis being approached to consider enrollment in a clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive no follow-up (usual care) or a follow-up telephone call to facilitate FRP utilization stratified by study site. The target enrollment was 132 patients, with 66 patients in each study arm. The primary outcome was the consent rate to the multisite interventional study on the FRP among participants enrolling in clinical trials.

RESULTS:

The study had a 78% consent rate and enrolled a total of 132 participants, of whom 51% were non-White compared with 28% of CCC treatment clinical trial participants in 2019. No difference in enrollment in clinical trials between the two study arms was observed as the proportion of enrollment was 70% for both study arms. The most common reason for not enrolling in a clinical trial was due to ineligibility determined through screening procedures (75%).

CONCLUSION:

The current study observed that implementation of FRP at CCCs is feasible and serves a diverse patient population. Future studies will measure the impact of programs on overall clinical trial accrual and among racial/ethnic minorities.

Ethical Considerations in Caring for Patients with Advanced Malignancy

Patients with advanced malignancy have decisions to make about next steps that are multifactorial and highly ramified. At each step, they, their loved ones, and their health care providers will attempt to make right decisions and avoid wrong ones. Beyond bare ethical principles, these patients face tensions between what they hope for, what is possible, and what those around them expect and advise. This article uses a case-based approach to explore the balance between prognostication and directive counsel; affective forecasting and decisional regret; hope and the therapeutic misconception; and issues of patient ownership and abandonment at the end of life.

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Laboratory Reference Ranges and Testing Intervals Work Group

PURPOSE

In clinical research, eligibility criteria promote patient safety and optimize the evidence generated from clinical trials. However, overly stringent eligibility criteria, including laboratory requirements, may limit enrollment, resulting in delayed trial completion and potentially limiting applicability of trial results to a general practice population.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Starting in 2018, a working group consisting of experts in direct patient care, the FDA, industry, and patient advocacy developed recommendations to guide the optimal use of laboratory reference ranges and testing intervals in clinical trial eligibility criteria and study procedures. The working group evaluated current eligibility criteria across different clinical trial phases and performed a literature review to evaluate the impact of and justification for laboratory test eligibility requirements and testing intervals in clinical trials. Recommendations were developed on the basis of the goals of promoting safety and optimizing the evidence generated, while also expanding eligibility and applicability, and minimizing excess burden of trial participation.

RESULTS

In general, we found little variation over time and trial phase in laboratory test requirements, suggesting that these eligibility criteria are not refined according to ongoing clinical experience. We propose recommendations to optimize the use of laboratory tests when considering eligibility criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailoring the use of laboratory test requirements and testing intervals may increase the number and diversity of patients in clinical trials and provide clinical data that more closely represent the general practice populations.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

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.

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.

Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste.

Identifying essential information to support patient decision-making regarding participation in cancer clinical trials: A Delphi study

PURPOSES

This research set out to contribute to ongoing efforts to improve the quality of informed consent information provided to patients by specifically focusing on establishing consensus with regard to essential information to enhance the informed consent process.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A Delphi consensus method was used to conduct three rounds of online surveys. Five groups of experts directly or indirectly involved in the informed consent process were invited to participate: patients, family members/friends, physicians, other health professionals and other key informants, including ethicists, contract research staff and pharmaceutical company staff.

FINDINGS

Of 156 eligible participants, 101 participants (64.7%) completed all three rounds. In round 1, 994 information items were reported and generated into 74 statements. These were grouped under eight headings essential to the informed consent process. In rounds 2 and 3, the list was reduced to 15 statements representing consensus on essential information to be included in a summarised patient information document to support decision-making regarding trial participation. Risks and discomforts, participation requirements and trial governance were identified as important considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

The 15 essential statements identified in this study could be used as components of a summarised information sheet given to potential cancer clinical trial participants, as an adjunct to the informed consent process. A robust evaluation of the impact of these statements on the quality of the informed consent process is needed.

Assessment of Motivations and Willingness to Participate in Research of Outpatients With Anxiety, Mood, and Psychotic Disorders

The motivations of participants recruited for research, especially from potentially vulnerable populations, have received increasing attention. The present investigation compares the motivations and willingness to participate in research of 134 psychiatric outpatients and 50 controls. The willingness to participate of both groups was similar. We found a higher proportion of psychiatric admissions and a higher degree of computer literacy among those willing to participate. Regardless of their decision concerning participation, the reasons given by the members of both groups were logical and concordant with the related literature. This suggests that negative views about the motivations of psychiatric patients to act as research participants are unfounded. Efforts should focus on the predictors of willingness to participate that we have identified for improving recruitment. The implications of these results for research are discussed.

At What Cost to Clinical Trial Enrollment? A Retrospective Study of Patient Travel Burden in Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Recent literature suggests that living in a rural setting may be associated with adverse cancer outcomes. This study examines the burden of travel from home to cancer center for clinical trial (CT) enrollees.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients from the University of California San Francisco Clinical Trial Management System database who enrolled in a cancer CT for a breast, genitourinary, or gastrointestinal malignancy between 1993 and 2014 were included. Cancer type, household zip code, race/ethnicity, phase of study, study sponsor, and year of signed consent were exported. Distance traveled from home to center was calculated using a GoogleMaps application programming interface. The relationships of distance with phase of CT, household income, and race/ethnicity were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 1,600 patients were enrolled in breast (55.8%), genitourinary (29.4%), or gastrointestinal (14.9%) cancer CTs. The overall median unidirectional distance traveled from home to study site was 25.8 miles (interquartile range [IQR] 11.5-75.3). Of the trial sponsors examined, principal investigator (56.4%), industry (22.2%), cooperative group (11.6%), and National Institutes of Health (NIH; 9.8%), the longest distance traveled was for NIH-sponsored trials, with a median of 39.4 miles (p < .001). Phase I (8.4%) studies had the longest distance traveled, with a median of 41.2 miles (IQR 14.5-101.0 miles; p = .001). White patients (83%) traveled longer compared with black patients (4.4%), with median distances of 29.9 and 13.9 miles, respectively (p < .001). Patients from lower-income areas (n = 799) traveled longer distances compared with patients from higher-income areas (n = 773; 58.3 vs. 17.8 miles, respectively; p < .001). A multivariable linear model where log10 (distance) was the outcome and adjusting for the exported variables and income revealed that cancer type, year of consent, race/ethnicity, and income were significantly associated with distance traveled.

CONCLUSION

This study found that the burden of travel is highest among patients enrolled in NIH-sponsored trials, phase I studies, or living in low-income areas. These data suggest that travel burden for cancer CT participants may be significant.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study is one of the first to measure travel distance for patients in cancer clinical trials using a real-world GoogleMaps calculator. Out-of-pocket expenses such as travel are not typically covered by health care payers; therefore, patients may face considerable cost to attend each study visit. Using a single-center clinical trials enrollment database, this study found that the burden of travel is highest for patients enrolled in National Institutes of Health-sponsored trials and phase I studies, as well as for patients living in low-income areas. Results suggest that a significant proportion of patients enrolled in clinical trials face a substantial travel burden.

Our Life Depends on This Drug: Competence, Inequity, and Voluntary Consent in Clinical Trials on Supervised Injectable Opioid Assisted Treatment

Supervised injectable opioid assisted treament (siOAT) prescribes injectable opioids to individuals for whom other forms of addiction treatment have been ineffective. In this article, we examine arguments that opioid-dependent people should be assumed incompetent to voluntarily consent to clinical research on siOAT unless proven otherwise. We agree that concerns about competence and voluntary consent deserve careful attention in this context. But we oppose framing the issue solely as a matter of the competence of opioid-dependent people and emphasize that it should be considered in the context of inequities in access to siOAT as a medical treatment. Consequently, we suggest that bioethics literature on nonexploitation, which focuses on clinical research in low-income countries, is helpful due to locating ethical issues within systemic social conditions. Finally, we consider the implications of our argument for the ethics of clinical research on siOAT.

The Role of Nonverbal Communication Behaviors in Clinical Trial and Research Study Recruitment

Few studies have examined the communication behaviors of those who recruit for clinical trials and research studies, particularly of nonmedical professionals who often do the bulk of recruiting. This focus-group study of 63 recruiters analyzes the ways in which nonverbal communication behaviors support the process of recruitment, using the lens of communication accommodation theory. Results indicate that recruiters first "read" potential study participants' nonverbal communication for clues about their state of mind, then use nonverbal communication to achieve a sense of convergence. Specific nonverbal communication behaviors were discussed by recruiters, including smiling, variations in the use of voice, adjusting body position, the appropriate use of physical touch, the management of eye contact, and the effect of clothing and physical appearance. Implications for recruitment practice are discussed.

Why take part in personalised cancer research? Patients' genetic misconception, genetic responsibility and incomprehension of stratification-an empirical-ethical examination

Therapeutic misconception is a well-known challenge for informed decision-making for cancer research participants. What is still missing, is a detailed understanding of the impact of "personalised" treatment research (e.g. biomarkers for stratification) on research participants. For this, we conducted the first longitudinal empirical-ethical study based on semi-structured interviews with colorectal cancer patients (n = 40) enrolled in a biomarker trial for (neo)adjuvant treatment, analysing the patients' understanding of and perspectives on research and treatment with qualitative methods. In addition to therapeutic misconception based on patients' confusion of research and treatment, and here triggered by misled motivation, information paternalism or incomprehension, we identified genetic misconception and genetic responsibility as new problematic issues. Patients mainly were not aware of the major research aim of future stratification into responders and non-responders nor did they fully acknowledge this as the aim for personalised cancer research. Thus, ethical and practical reflection on informed decision-making in cancer treatment and research should take into account the complexity of lay interpretations of modern personalised medicine. Instead of very formalistic, liability-oriented informed consent procedures, we suggest a more personalised communication approach to inform and motivate patients for cancer research.

Taking the bull by the horns: Ethical considerations in the design and implementation of an Ebola virus therapy trial

Ebola virus is categorized as one of the most dangerous pathogens in the world. Although there is no known cure for Ebola virus, there is some evidence that the severity of the disease can be curtailed using plasma from survivors. Although there is a general consensus on the importance of research, methodological and ethical challenges for conducting research in an emergency situation have been identified. Performing clinical trials is important, especially for health conditions that are of public health significance (including rare epidemics) to develop new therapies as well as to test the efficacy and effectiveness of new interventions. However, routine clinical trial procedures can be difficult to apply in emergency public health crises hence require a consideration of alternative approaches on how therapies in these situations are tested and brought to the market. This paper examines some of the ethical issues that arise when conducting clinical trials during a highly dangerous pathogen outbreak, with a special focus on the Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa. The issues presented here come from a review of a protocol that was submitted to the Global Emerging Pathogens Treatment Consortium (GET). In reviewing the proposal, which was about conducting a clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of using convalescent plasma in the management of Ebola virus disease, the authors deliberated on various issues, which were documented as minutes and later used as a basis for this paper. The experiences and reflections shared by the authors, who came from different regions and disciplines across Africa, present wide-ranging perspectives on the conduct of clinical trials during a dangerous disease outbreak in a resource-poor setting.