1
|
Unger JM, Shulman LN, Facktor MA, Nelson H, Fleury ME. National Estimates of the Participation of Patients With Cancer in Clinical Research Studies Based on Commission on Cancer Accreditation Data. J Clin Oncol 2024; 42:2139-2148. [PMID: 38564681 PMCID: PMC11191051 DOI: 10.1200/jco.23.01030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2023] [Revised: 01/15/2024] [Accepted: 02/08/2024] [Indexed: 04/04/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE National estimates of cancer clinical trial participation are nearly two decades old and have focused solely on enrollment to treatment trials, which does not reflect the willingness of patients to contribute to other elements of clinical research. We determined inclusive, contemporary estimates of clinical trial participation for adults with cancer using a national sample of data from the Commission on Cancer (CoC). METHODS The data were obtained from accreditation information submitted by the 1,200 CoC programs, which represent more than 70% of all cancer cases diagnosed in the United States each year. Deidentified, institution-level aggregate counts of annual enrollment to treatment, biorepository, diagnostic, economic, genetic, prevention, quality-of-life (QOL), and registry studies were examined. Overall, study-type estimates for the period 2013-2017 were estimated. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to account for missing data, with summary estimates calculated separately by type of program (eg, National Cancer Institute [NCI]-designated cancer centers) and pooled. RESULTS The overall estimated patient participation rate to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%. Patients with cancer participated in a wide variety of other studies, including biorepository (12.9%), registry (7.3%), genetic (3.6%), QOL (2.8%), diagnostic (2.5%), and economic (2.4%) studies. Treatment trial enrollment was 21.6% at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers, 5.4% at academic (non-NCI-designated) comprehensive cancer programs, 5.7% at integrated network cancer programs, and 4.1% at community programs. One in five patients (21.9%) participated in one or more cancer clinical research studies. CONCLUSION In a first-time use of national accreditation information from the CoC, enrollment to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%, higher than historical estimates of <5%. Patients participated in a diverse set of other study types. Contributions of adult patients with cancer to clinical research is more common than previously understood.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Mark E. Fleury
- American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
O'Sullivan Greene E, Shiely F. Recording and reporting of recruitment strategies in trial protocols, registries, and publications was nonexistent. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 152:248-256. [PMID: 36273772 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.10.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2022] [Revised: 09/27/2022] [Accepted: 10/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To investigate how trialists record and report their recruitment strategies and the recruiter details in trial protocols, registries, and publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A retrospective study of ovarian cancer (OC) trials between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed 154 trial publications, 30 protocols, 105 registry entries, and 26 trial websites associated with 88 phase III OC trials. RESULTS None of the 88 trials reviewed published a recruitment strategy or made reference to an available recruitment strategy for the trial. Only 31% (n = 28) made reference to the recruiter but this was reported only in the protocol so we have no evidence these named recruiters performed the task. None of the trials reviewed which closed early or extended recruitment timelines due to slow accrual, reported measures taken to improve recruitment rates before stoppages or changes took place. There were disparities in the reported target recruitment numbers between the protocol, the publication, and the registry. CONCLUSION Recruitment strategies exist, and we are sure most trial centers use recruitment strategies, but they need to be recorded and reported, as part of the supplementary material if not the main publication, so we can evaluate their effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Frances Shiely
- Trials Research and Methodologies Unit, HRB Clinical Research Facility, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland; School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Al Sharie S, Araydah M, Al-Azzam S, Karasneh R, Hammoudeh AJ. The participation of Arab women in randomised clinical trials for cardiovascular diseases. Int J Clin Pract 2021; 75:e14612. [PMID: 34235821 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.14612] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2021] [Accepted: 07/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Women's enrolment in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) raises the attention of medical personnel and evidence-based medicine researchers to achieve the highest possible quality and transparency of conducted studies. This study aims to demonstrate various patterns and relationships of women's enrolment in cardiovascular RCTs conducted in Arab countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus) were accessed and searched for randomised clinical trials investigating cardiovascular diseases in Arab countries. Studies were screened, data were extracted and risk of bias of included studies was assessed independently by two sets of authors. The female to male ratio and the participation prevalence ratio (PPR) were calculated for each trial and the association of them with different variables were analysed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Of the 9071 patients enrolled in the 71 included RCTs, 38.02% were women. Various factors such as age of participants, publication year, therapeutic class, clinical indication, prevention type, and location of trial showed a significant association with the level of women enrolment in cardiovascular randomised clinical trials in Arab countries (P-value < .05). The median female to male ratio of all the trials was 0.55. The median female: male ratio varied by clinical indications (2.33 for valvular heart diseases vs 0.5 for stroke), intervention type (0.46 for surgical procedures vs 0.52 for drugs), prevention type (0.79 for secondary prevention, 0.74 for primary prevention and 0.52 for tertiary prevention), sample size (0.48 for Q1 vs 0.85 for Q2) and by age groups (0.98 for ages ≤50 years old vs 0.47 for 56-60 years old). Women were overrepresented in valvular heart disease trials (PPR = 1.37), and underrepresented in coronary artery disease, stroke and atrial fibrillation trials (PPR = 0.6, 0.63, and 0.71, respectively). CONCLUSION As a result of the huge importance of RCTs in the medical field, and to reduce biases arising from inaccurate representation of different study populations, women's enrolment in Arab cardiovascular trials should be pre-planned and based on the percentage of women among the studied disease population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Sayer Al-Azzam
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Castillo G, Lalu M, Asad S, Foster M, Kekre N, Fergusson D, Hawrysh T, Atkins H, Thavorn K, Montroy J, Schwartz S, Holt R, Broady R, Presseau J. Hematologists' barriers and enablers to screening and recruiting patients to a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy trial: a theory-informed interview study. Trials 2021; 22:230. [PMID: 33766105 PMCID: PMC7995587 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05121-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2020] [Accepted: 02/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Novel therapies often fail to reach the bedside due to low trial recruitment rates. Prior to conducting one of the first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy trials in Canada, we used the Theoretical Domains Framework, a novel tool for identifying barriers and enablers to behavior change, to identify physician-related barriers and enablers to screening and recruiting patients for an early phase immunotherapy trial. METHODS We conducted interviews with hematologists across Canada and used a directed content analysis to identify relevant domains reflecting the key factors that may affect screening and recruitment. RESULTS In total, we interviewed 15 hematologists. Physicians expressed "cautious hope"; while expressing safety, feasibility, and screening criteria concerns, 14 out of 15 hematologists intended to screen for the trial (domains: knowledge, goals, beliefs about consequences, intentions). Physicians underscored the "challenging contexts," identifying resources, workload, forgetting, and patient wait times to receive CAR T cells as key practical barriers to screening (domains: environmental context and resources, memory, attention and decision-making, behavioral regulation). They also highlighted "variability in roles and procedures" that may lead to missed trial candidates (domain: social and professional role). Left unaddressed, these barriers may undermine trial recruitment. CONCLUSIONS This study is among the first to use the Theoretical Domains Framework from the physician perspective to identify recruitment challenges to early phase trials and demonstrates the value of this approach for identifying barriers to screening and recruitment that may not otherwise have been elicited. This approach can optimize trial procedures and may serve to inform future promising early phase cancer therapy trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03765177 . Registered on December 5, 2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gisell Castillo
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
- Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Manoj Lalu
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
- Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Ottawa at the Ottawa Hospital General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Sarah Asad
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
- Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Madison Foster
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
- Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Natasha Kekre
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
- Blood and Marrow Transplant Program, The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Dean Fergusson
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
- Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 600 Peter Morand Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario, K1G 5Z3, Canada
| | | | - Harold Atkins
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
- Blood and Marrow Transplant Program, The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Kednapa Thavorn
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 600 Peter Morand Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario, K1G 5Z3, Canada
- Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences (ICES), University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4E9, Canada
| | - Joshua Montroy
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
- Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | | | - Robert Holt
- BC Cancer Genome Sciences Centre, 100-570 West 7th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 4S6, Canada
| | - Raewyn Broady
- Leukemia/BMT Program, Vancouver General Hospital, 2775 Laurel St - 10th floor, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 1M9, Canada
| | - Justin Presseau
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada.
- Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada.
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 600 Peter Morand Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario, K1G 5Z3, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Verghese TS, Merriel A, Leighton L, Latthe P. Willingness of postmenopausal women to participate in a study involving local vaginal oestrogen treatment as an adjunct to pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a qualitative study. Int Urogynecol J 2020; 32:413-421. [PMID: 32839831 PMCID: PMC7838130 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04480-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2020] [Accepted: 07/28/2020] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
Background Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) negatively affects many women’s quality of life. The ability to develop improved therapeutic approaches for POP patients is hampered by low patient recruitment and retention rates in clinical trials. Objective Our objective was to explore the motivational factors and barriers to recruitment and participation in clinical trials among postmenopausal women with POP who are intending to have surgical management. Design Qualitative study based on in-depth face-to-face interviews with postmenopausal women attending urogynaecology clinics in the UK intending to have surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse. These women were eligible to participate in the on-going clinical trial on the use of local vaginal oestrogen as an adjunct to surgical treatment. Twenty-two postmenopausal women aged 52–76 years were interviewed. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis method. Results Many women participated because of altruistic motivations; however, we found that clarity of information provided, timing of approach and acceptability of study design played a pivotal role in women. Of the women who declined participation, the following themes emerged: uncertainty of the investigational product, fear of experimentation, logistical concerns and regret that their condition was trivialised at an early stage. Conclusion We have gained a valuable insight into women’s views and experience in the decision making process. Understanding the elements that will enhance trial participation such as clarity of information provided, balance between professional guidance whilst maintaining equipoise, easy access to trial teams and timing of approach will ultimately enable us to improve our recruitment to clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tina Sara Verghese
- Clinical Research Fellow Institute of Metabolism and System Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
| | - Abigail Merriel
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Pallavi Latthe
- Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kamen CS, Quinn GP, Asare M, Heckler CE, Guido JJ, Giguere JK, Gilliland K, Liu JJ, Geer J, Delacroix SE, Morrow GR, Jacobsen PB. Multimedia psychoeducation for patients with cancer who are eligible for clinical trials: A randomized clinical trial. Cancer 2018; 124:4504-4511. [PMID: 30291797 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31771] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2018] [Revised: 08/10/2018] [Accepted: 08/22/2018] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Supporting patients' decision making about clinical trials may enhance trial participation. To date, few theory-based interventions have been tested to address this issue. The objective of the current study was aimed to evaluate the effect of a multimedia psychoeducation (MP) intervention, relative to a print education (PE) intervention, on patients' decision support needs and attitudes about clinical trials. METHODS Patients with cancer who were eligible for participation in a National Cancer Institute therapeutic cancer clinical trial were recruited through the nationwide University of Rochester Cancer Center National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program from 2014 to 2016 and were randomized to the MP or PE intervention. Assessments at baseline (before intervention), postintervention, and at a 2-month follow-up visit included patients' decision support needs, attitudes regarding clinical trials, and clinical trial participation. RESULTS In total, 418 patients with various types of cancer were recruited (ages 26-89 years). Relative to the PE intervention, the MP intervention did not significantly affect decision support needs. However, patients in the MP arm reported significantly more positive attitudes about clinical trials and were more likely to participate in a clinical trial than those in the PE arm (69% vs 62%; P = .01). Furthermore, an improvement in attitudes about clinical trials significantly mediated the effect of the intervention on participation in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS The MP intervention was able to improve patient attitudes toward clinical trials compared with the PE intervention, and this improvement led to increased rates of participation in trials. The MP intervention could be disseminated to improve attitudes about clinical trials among patients with cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles S Kamen
- Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Gwendolyn P Quinn
- Health Outcomes and Behavior Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Matthew Asare
- Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Charles E Heckler
- Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Joseph J Guido
- Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | | | - Kari Gilliland
- Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Jane Jijun Liu
- Heartland National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program, Decatur, Illinois
| | - Jodi Geer
- Metro-Minnesota National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
| | - Scott E Delacroix
- Gulf South Minority Underserved National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana
| | - Gary R Morrow
- Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Paul B Jacobsen
- Health Outcomes and Behavior Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kick K, Assfalg R, Aydin S, Bechtold-Dalla Pozza S, Böcker D, Braig S, Bunk M, Dunstheimer D, Durmashkina A, Ermer U, Gavazzeni A, Gerstl EM, Heinrich M, Herbst M, Kriesen Y, Kuhnle-Krahl U, Müller H, Nellen-Hellmuth N, Ockert C, Ramminger C, Sindichakis M, Tretter S, Warncke K, Achenbach P, Ziegler AG, Hoffmann VS. Recruiting young pre-symptomatic children for a clinical trial in type 1 diabetes: Insights from the Fr1da insulin intervention study. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2018; 11:170-173. [PMID: 30197933 PMCID: PMC6126533 DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2018] [Revised: 08/01/2018] [Accepted: 08/13/2018] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Although detection of children at high risk of developing type 1 diabetes and diagnosis of early stages is possible, up to now there exists no approved therapy to delay or prevent type 1 diabetes. Thus it is vital to develop evidence-based interventions. For this a sufficient number of trial participants is crucial but difficult to obtain especially in asymptomatic children. Aim Identifying family characteristics that lead to or impede trial participation and analyze reasons stated by families for non-participation. Methods Participants for the Fr1da Insulin Intervention study are recruited from the Fr1da study, a population based screening for early stage type 1 diabetes in Bavaria. Families with eligible children were invited to enroll. We analyzed sex and age of the child, distance of the family to the study center in Munich and the existence of a first degree family member with type 1 as possible influential factors for study participation. We also analyzed reasons stated by families who declined study participation in a phone interview. Results Of 146 eligible children 77 (53%) were enrolled into the trial. None of the tested family characteristics differed significantly between the enrolling and the families not participating, but in general enrolling families lived closer to the study site than families not participating. This is also reflected in the reasons given by non-participating families. The most frequent reason stated were time restrictions. The second most frequent reason was the venous blood draw. Conclusion The factors for non-participation identified in this project need be taken into account for the design of future trials in young children to ensure proper recruitment and thus to generate valid results for medical treatment of children. More research on the reason of participation and non-participation in clinical trials is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kerstin Kick
- Forschergruppe Diabetes, Technical University Munich, at Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Robin Assfalg
- Institute of Diabetes Research, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich-Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Susanne Aydin
- Forschergruppe Diabetes, Technical University Munich, at Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | | | | | | | - Melanie Bunk
- Forschergruppe Diabetes e.V. at Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich-Neuherberg, Germany
| | | | - Alevtina Durmashkina
- Forschergruppe Diabetes, Technical University Munich, at Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Uwe Ermer
- Kliniken St. Elisabeth, Neuburg/Donau, Germany
| | | | | | - Melanie Heinrich
- Forschergruppe Diabetes, Technical University Munich, at Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Melanie Herbst
- Forschergruppe Diabetes e.V. at Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich-Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Yvonne Kriesen
- Forschergruppe Diabetes e.V. at Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich-Neuherberg, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | - Claudia Ramminger
- Forschergruppe Diabetes e.V. at Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich-Neuherberg, Germany
| | | | | | - Katharina Warncke
- Forschergruppe Diabetes e.V. at Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich-Neuherberg, Germany
- Department of Pediatrics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Peter Achenbach
- Forschergruppe Diabetes, Technical University Munich, at Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
- Institute of Diabetes Research, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich-Neuherberg, Germany
- Forschergruppe Diabetes e.V. at Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich-Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Anette-G. Ziegler
- Forschergruppe Diabetes, Technical University Munich, at Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
- Institute of Diabetes Research, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich-Neuherberg, Germany
- Forschergruppe Diabetes e.V. at Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich-Neuherberg, Germany
- Corresponding author. Institute of Diabetes Research, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764 Neuherberg , Germany.
| | - Verena S. Hoffmann
- Institute of Diabetes Research, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich-Neuherberg, Germany
- Corresponding author. Institute of Diabetes Research, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764 Neuherberg , Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Donovan JL, Young GJ, Walsh EI, Metcalfe C, Lane JA, Martin RM, Tazewell MK, Davis M, Peters TJ, Turner EL, Mills N, Khazragui H, Khera TK, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. A prospective cohort and extended comprehensive-cohort design provided insights about the generalizability of a pragmatic trial: the ProtecT prostate cancer trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 96:35-46. [PMID: 29288137 PMCID: PMC5854278 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2017] [Revised: 11/27/2017] [Accepted: 12/11/2017] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) deliver robust internally valid evidence but generalizability is often neglected. Design features built into the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) RCT of treatments for localized prostate cancer (PCa) provided insights into its generalizability. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Population-based cluster randomization created a prospective study of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and a comprehensive-cohort study including groups choosing treatment or excluded from the RCT, as well as those randomized. Baseline information assessed selection and response during RCT conduct. RESULTS The prospective study (82,430 PSA-tested men) represented healthy men likely to respond to a screening invitation. The extended comprehensive cohort comprised 1,643 randomized, 997 choosing treatment, and 557 excluded with advanced cancer/comorbidities. Men choosing treatment were very similar to randomized men except for having more professional/managerial occupations. Excluded men were similar to the randomized socio-demographically but different clinically, representing less healthy men with more advanced PCa. CONCLUSION The design features of the ProtecT RCT provided data to assess the representativeness of the prospective cohort and generalizability of the findings of the RCT. Greater attention to collecting data at the design stage of pragmatic trials would better support later judgments by clinicians/policy-makers about the generalizability of RCT findings in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenny L Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, Hosted by University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
| | - Grace J Young
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Eleanor I Walsh
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Chris Metcalfe
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - J Athene Lane
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Richard M Martin
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, National Institute for Health Research, Bristol Nutrition Biomedical Research Unit, Bristol, UK
| | - Marta K Tazewell
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Michael Davis
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Tim J Peters
- School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Emma L Turner
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicola Mills
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Hanan Khazragui
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Tarnjit K Khera
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - David E Neal
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Freddie C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Rowlands C, Rooshenas L, Fairhurst K, Rees J, Gamble C, Blazeby JM. Detailed systematic analysis of recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials in patients with an unscheduled admission to hospital. BMJ Open 2018; 8:e018581. [PMID: 29420230 PMCID: PMC5829602 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018581] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2017] [Revised: 12/05/2017] [Accepted: 12/08/2017] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To examine the design and findings of recruitment studies in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with an unscheduled hospital admission (UHA), to consider how to optimise recruitment in future RCTs of this nature. DESIGN Studies within the ORRCA database (Online Resource for Recruitment Research in Clinical TriAls; www.orrca.org.uk) that reported on recruitment to RCTs involving UHAs in patients >18 years were included. Extracted data included trial clinical details, and the rationale and main findings of the recruitment study. RESULTS Of 3114 articles populating ORRCA, 39 recruitment studies were eligible, focusing on 68 real and 13 hypothetical host RCTs. Four studies were prospectively planned investigations of recruitment interventions, one of which was a nested RCT. Most recruitment papers were reports of recruitment experiences from one or more 'real' RCTs (n=24) or studies using hypothetical RCTs (n=11). Rationales for conducting recruitment studies included limited time for informed consent (IC) and patients being too unwell to provide IC. Methods to optimise recruitment included providing patients with trial information in the prehospital setting, technology to allow recruiters to cover multiple sites, screening logs to uncover recruitment barriers, and verbal rather than written information and consent. CONCLUSION There is a paucity of high-quality research into recruitment in RCTs involving UHAs with only one nested randomised study evaluating a recruitment intervention. Among the remaining studies, methods to optimise recruitment focused on how to improve information provision in the prehospital setting and use of screening logs. Future research in this setting should focus on the prospective evaluation of the well-developed interventions to optimise recruitment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ceri Rowlands
- MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Leila Rooshenas
- MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- School of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Katherine Fairhurst
- MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- School of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Jonathan Rees
- School of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol
- Division of Surgery, Head and Neck, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Carrol Gamble
- MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- School of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol
- Division of Surgery, Head and Neck, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Leighton PA, Brealey SD, Dias JJ. Interventions to improve retention in a surgical, clinical trial: A pragmatic, stakeholder-driven approach. J Evid Based Med 2018; 11:12-19. [PMID: 29356437 DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12271] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2017] [Accepted: 07/23/2017] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To explore stakeholder perspectives upon participant retention in clinical trials, and to generate strategies to support retention in a surgical, clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING The SWIFFT trial is a multicenter study comparing treatments for the fracture of the waist of the scaphoid bone in adults. Here we report upon a multistage, iterative consultative process with SWIFFT stakeholders, these include workshops with members of the public, with nurses involved in data collection, and with consultant clinicians. Structured discussions were digitally recorded and transcribed, data were handled and analyzed following a framework approach to qualitative data analysis. RESULTS Removing practical barriers were identified as important factors in supporting retention. Stakeholders also identified that (i) how well a study is understood and (ii) how much it is valued are important factors in an individual's willingness to maintain their involvement. A number of strategies resulted from this consultation, these include: in-clinic data collection, co-ordinated clinical and research appointments, a SWIFFT website, and newsletter. CONCLUSION A participatory approach to trial retention might engage all relevant stakeholders in the delivery of a clinical trial, it might also support the generation of specific and contextually relevant solutions to the challenge of participant retention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul A Leighton
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Stephen D Brealey
- York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - Joseph J Dias
- Clinical Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Kwan A, Chadwick N, Hancock B. Improving Survival of Patients With Hodgkin Lymphoma Over 4 Decades: Experience of the British National Lymphoma Investigation (BNLI) With 6834 Patients. CLINICAL LYMPHOMA, MYELOMA & LEUKEMIA 2017; 17:108-119. [PMID: 28027894 DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2016.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2016] [Revised: 10/30/2016] [Accepted: 11/10/2016] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The management of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) has changed markedly over the last 50 years. This is due to the expanding understanding about the biology of the disease, the development of increasingly efficacious multimodal treatment, and the recognition of how to reduce late effects. The British National Lymphoma Investigation (BNLI) was formed in the 1970s to coordinate UK research in the diagnosis and treatment of lymphoma. We describe the improvement in trial patient survival over 4 decades. PATIENTS AND METHODS This analysis is of data on 6834 patients with a de novo diagnosis of HL registered onto studies with BNLI oversight from January 1, 1970, to December 31, 2009. Patients were subdivided in 4 groups according to their decade of registration; 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Because of the lengthy data collection period, there is a difference in duration of follow-up between decade groups, with median follow-up in the 1970s group of 28.2 years, 18.0 years in the 1980s group, 9.4 years in the 1990s group, and 5.4 years in the 2000s group. Comparison between data in all 4 groups is not possible beyond 13.4 years (maximum duration of follow-up in the 2000s group), and so a cutoff has been applied at 14 years. Data on overall survival, cause of death, primary treatment modality, and incidence of secondary malignancy were collected. RESULTS Clear and statistically significant improvements in survival curves between the decades were present, with 10-year overall survival increasing from 62.4% in the 1970s to 89.6% in the 2000s. There was a suggestion that second malignancy and cardiac-related deaths have been reducing over time, but longer follow-up is needed for the later decades to confirm this trend. CONCLUSION Results support existing registry data demonstrating that survival for HL has improved over the 4 decades analyzed. This data set is robust and validated, and it adds valuable understanding to the reasons behind the survival curves, which are a balance between efficacious therapies and decreased death related to cardiac conditions and second malignancies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy Kwan
- Academic Unit of Clinical Oncology, University of Sheffield, Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK
| | - Nick Chadwick
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, UK
| | - Barry Hancock
- Academic Unit of Clinical Oncology, University of Sheffield, Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Donovan JL, Rooshenas L, Jepson M, Elliott D, Wade J, Avery K, Mills N, Wilson C, Paramasivan S, Blazeby JM. Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: the development and implementation of the Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Trials 2016; 17:283. [PMID: 27278130 PMCID: PMC4898358 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1391-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 172] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2015] [Accepted: 05/06/2016] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered essential to determine effective interventions for routine clinical practice, but many fail to recruit participants efficiently, and some really important RCTs are not undertaken because recruitment is thought to be too difficult. The ‘QuinteT Recruitment Intervention’ (QRI) aims to facilitate informed decision making by patients about RCT participation and to increase recruitment. This paper presents the development and implementation of the QRI. Methods The QRI developed iteratively as a complex intervention. It emerged from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ProtecT trial and has been developed further in 13 RCTs. The final version of the QRI uses a combination of standard and innovative qualitative research methods with some simple quantification to understand recruitment and identify sources of difficulties. Results The QRI has two major phases: understanding recruitment as it happens and then developing a plan of action to address identified difficulties and optimise informed consent in collaboration with the RCT chief investigator (CI) and the Clinical Trials Unit (CTU). The plan of action usually includes RCT-specific, as well as generic, aspects. The QRI can be used in two ways: it can be integrated into the feasibility/pilot or main phase of an RCT to prevent difficulties developing and optimise recruitment from the start, or it can be applied to an ongoing RCT experiencing recruitment shortfalls, with a view to rapidly improving recruitment and informed consent or gathering evidence to justify RCT closure. Conclusions The QRI provides a flexible way of understanding recruitment difficulties and producing a plan to address them while ensuring engaged and well-informed decision making by patients. It can facilitate recruitment to the most controversial and important RCTs. QRIs are likely to be of interest to the CIs and CTUs developing proposals for ‘difficult’ RCTs or for RCTs with lower than expected recruitment and to the funding bodies wishing to promote efficient recruitment in pragmatic RCTs. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1391-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenny L Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PR, UK. .,Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West at University Hospitals Bristol, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK.
| | - Leila Rooshenas
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PR, UK
| | - Marcus Jepson
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PR, UK
| | - Daisy Elliott
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PR, UK
| | - Julia Wade
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PR, UK
| | - Kerry Avery
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PR, UK
| | - Nicola Mills
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PR, UK
| | - Caroline Wilson
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PR, UK
| | - Sangeetha Paramasivan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PR, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PR, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Strong S, Paramasivan S, Mills N, Wilson C, Donovan JL, Blazeby JM. 'The trial is owned by the team, not by an individual': a qualitative study exploring the role of teamwork in recruitment to randomised controlled trials in surgical oncology. Trials 2016; 17:212. [PMID: 27113592 PMCID: PMC4845366 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1341-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2015] [Accepted: 04/14/2016] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Challenges exist in recruitment to trials involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties. Collaboration is required between clinical specialty and research teams. The aim of this study was to explore how teamwork influences recruitment to a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted in three centres with a purposeful sample of members of the surgical, oncology and research teams recruiting to a feasibility RCT comparing definitive chemoradiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Interviews explored factors known to influence healthcare team effectiveness and were audio-recorded and thematically analysed. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently. Results Twenty-one interviews were conducted. Factors that influenced how team working impacted upon trial recruitment were centred on: (1) the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting, (2) leadership of the trial, and (3) the recruitment process. The weekly MDT meeting was reported as central to successful recruitment and formed the focus for creating a ‘study team’, bringing together clinical and research teams. Shared study leadership positively influenced healthcare professionals’ willingness to participate. Interviewees perceived their clinical colleagues to have strong treatment preferences which led to scepticism regarding whether the treatments were being described to patients in a balanced manner. Conclusions This study has highlighted a number of aspects of team functioning that are important for recruitment to RCTs that span different clinical specialties. Understanding these issues will aid the production of guidance on team-relevant issues that should be considered in trial management and the development of interventions that will facilitate teamwork and improve recruitment to these challenging RCTs. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN89052791.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sean Strong
- Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.
| | - Sangeetha Paramasivan
- Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicola Mills
- Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK
| | - Caroline Wilson
- Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK
| | - Jenny L Donovan
- Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.,Division of Surgery, Head and Neck, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Townsend D, Mills N, Savović J, Donovan JL. A systematic review of training programmes for recruiters to randomised controlled trials. Trials 2015; 16:432. [PMID: 26416143 PMCID: PMC4587840 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0908-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2014] [Accepted: 08/11/2015] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often difficult. Clinician related factors have been implicated as important reasons for low rates of recruitment. Clinicians (doctors and other health professionals) can experience discomfort with some underlying principles of RCTs and experience difficulties in conveying them positively to potential trial participants. Recruiter training has been suggested to address identified problems but a synthesis of this research is lacking. The aim of our study was to systematically review the available evidence on training interventions for recruiters to randomised trials. METHODS Studies that evaluated training programmes for trial recruiters were included. Those that provided only general communication training not linked to RCT recruitment were excluded. Data extraction and quality assessment were completed by two reviewers independently, with a third author where necessary. RESULTS Seventeen studies of 9615 potentially eligible titles and abstracts were included in the review: three randomised controlled studies, two non-randomised controlled studies, nine uncontrolled pre-test/post-test studies, two qualitative studies, and a post-training questionnaire survey. Most studies were of moderate or weak quality. Training programmes were mostly set within cancer trials, and usually consisted of workshops with a mix of health professionals over one or two consecutive days covering generic and trial specific issues. Recruiter training programmes were well received and some increased recruiters' self-confidence in communicating key RCT concepts to patients. There was, however, little evidence that this training increased actual recruitment rates or patient understanding, satisfaction, or levels of informed consent. CONCLUSIONS There is a need to develop recruiter training programmes that can lead to improved recruitment and informed consent in randomised trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daisy Townsend
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - Nicola Mills
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - Jelena Savović
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - Jenny L Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Bucci S, Butcher I, Hartley S, Neil ST, Mulligan J, Haddock G. Barriers and facilitators to recruitment in mental health services: care coordinators' expectations and experience of referring to a psychosis research trial. Psychol Psychother 2015; 88:335-50. [PMID: 25257960 DOI: 10.1111/papt.12042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2014] [Revised: 07/30/2014] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE High-quality research trials are necessary to provide evidence for the effective management of mental health difficulties, but successful recruitment can be challenging. DESIGN This qualitative study examines the perceived barriers and facilitators to referring mental health service users to research trials. Seven care coordinators (n = 7) who facilitated the recruitment of participants to a cognitive behaviour therapy - informed psychosis intervention trial were interviewed. METHOD Demographic information was collected by questionnaire and a semi-structured guide was used to explore barriers and facilitators to referring to a partially randomized participant preference trial. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. RESULTS Four key themes, each with a number of sub-themes, were identified: (1) engage the care coordinator in the recruitment process, (2) barriers to referring to research studies, (3) facilitators to referring to research studies; (4) organisational constraints impact on implementing research outcomes into routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS Understanding the barriers and facilitators to recruitment in mental health research could improve recruitment strategies. Our findings highlight the need for researchers' to closely consider their recruitment strategies as service users are not always given the choice to participate in research. Several key recommendations are made based on these findings in order to maximize successful recruitment to research studies. Overall, we recommend that researchers' adopt a flexible, tailor-made approach for each clinical team to ensure a collaborative relationship is developed between research staff and clinicians. PRACTITIONER POINTS A qualitative approach to understanding recruitment challenges provides a useful opportunity to explore the barriers and facilitators to recruiting participants to research studies. These findings have practical implications that highlight the need for a collaborative partnership between researchers and clinical services. Understanding the challenges and issues related to recruitment can help researchers consider strategies to overcome recruitment issues. More research with a larger sample, across a broader population and in different mental health services is required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandra Bucci
- School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
| | | | | | - Sandra T Neil
- Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - John Mulligan
- The Beacon, Mersey Care NHS Trust at HMP Garth Prison, Preston, UK
| | - Gillian Haddock
- School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Paramasivan S, Strong S, Wilson C, Campbell B, Blazeby JM, Donovan JL. A simple technique to identify key recruitment issues in randomised controlled trials: Q-QAT - Quanti-Qualitative Appointment Timing. Trials 2015; 16:88. [PMID: 25873096 PMCID: PMC4359435 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0617-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2014] [Accepted: 02/23/2015] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Recruitment to pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is acknowledged to be difficult, and few interventions have proved to be effective. Previous qualitative research has consistently revealed that recruiters provide imbalanced information about RCT treatments. However, qualitative research can be time-consuming to apply. Within a programme of research to optimise recruitment and informed consent in challenging RCTs, we developed a simple technique, Q-QAT (Quanti-Qualitative Appointment Timing), to systematically investigate and quantify the imbalance to help identify and address recruitment difficulties. Methods The Q-QAT technique comprised: 1) quantification of time spent discussing the RCT and its treatments using transcripts of audio-recorded recruitment appointments, 2) targeted qualitative research to understand the obstacles to recruitment and 3) feedback to recruiters on opportunities for improvement. This was applied to two RCTs with different clinical contexts and recruitment processes. Comparisons were made across clinical centres, recruiters and specialties. Results In both RCTs, the Q-QAT technique first identified considerable variations in the time spent by recruiters discussing the RCT and its treatments. The patterns emerging from this initial quantification of recruitment appointments then enabled targeted qualitative research to understand the issues and make suggestions to improve recruitment. In RCT1, presentation of the treatments was balanced, but little time was devoted to describing the RCT. Qualitative research revealed patients would have considered participation, but lacked awareness of the RCT. In RCT2, the balance of treatment presentation varied by specialists and centres. Qualitative research revealed difficulties with equipoise and confidence among recruiters presenting the RCT. The quantitative and qualitative findings were well-received by recruiters and opportunities to improve information provision were discussed. A blind coding exercise across three researchers led to the development of guidelines that can be used to apply the Q-QAT technique to other difficult RCTs. Conclusion The Q-QAT technique was easy to apply and rapidly identified obstacles to recruitment that could be understood through targeted qualitative research and addressed through feedback. The technique’s combination of quantitative and qualitative findings enabled the presentation of a holistic picture of recruitment challenges and added credibility to the feedback process. Note: both RCTs in this manuscript asked to be anonymised, so no trial registration details are provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sangeetha Paramasivan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - Sean Strong
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - Caroline Wilson
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - Bruce Campbell
- Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital and University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK.
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - Jenny L Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Paul C, Courtney R, Sanson-Fisher R, Carey M, Hill D, Simmons J, Rose S. A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of a pre-recruitment primer letter to increase participation in a study of colorectal screening and surveillance. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014. [PMID: 24690533 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-44:10.1186/1471-2288-14-44] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recruiting cancer patients is a barrier often encountered in research trials. However, very few randomized trials explore strategies to improve participation rates. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-recruitment primer letter to recruit persons diagnosed with colorectal cancer for a research trial. METHODS Potentially eligible participants were identified by the Victorian Cancer Registry. A total of 1,062 participants were randomized to receive either a mailed explanatory primer letter designed to encourage research participation, or no primer letter. Two weeks after the intervention, the Victorian Cancer Registry sought permission from patients to release their contact details to researchers. Those who agreed were contacted and invited to the study. RESULTS Pre-recruitment encouragement was not effective at increasing recruitment, with no significant differences demonstrated between experimental groups. Overall, 40% (n = 425) consented to participate, 25% (n = 243) refused and 35% (n = 394) did not respond. CONCLUSIONS While this study demonstrated disappointing outcomes, pre-recruitment letters should not be ruled out as an approach altogether. Rather, future research should explore whether other factors to increase motivation, such as intensity and timing, are feasible and acceptable for contacting cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12609000628246.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christine Paul
- Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour (PRCHB), University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Paul C, Courtney R, Sanson-Fisher R, Carey M, Hill D, Simmons J, Rose S. A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of a pre-recruitment primer letter to increase participation in a study of colorectal screening and surveillance. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14:44. [PMID: 24690533 PMCID: PMC3975453 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-44] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2013] [Accepted: 03/27/2014] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recruiting cancer patients is a barrier often encountered in research trials. However, very few randomized trials explore strategies to improve participation rates. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-recruitment primer letter to recruit persons diagnosed with colorectal cancer for a research trial. METHODS Potentially eligible participants were identified by the Victorian Cancer Registry. A total of 1,062 participants were randomized to receive either a mailed explanatory primer letter designed to encourage research participation, or no primer letter. Two weeks after the intervention, the Victorian Cancer Registry sought permission from patients to release their contact details to researchers. Those who agreed were contacted and invited to the study. RESULTS Pre-recruitment encouragement was not effective at increasing recruitment, with no significant differences demonstrated between experimental groups. Overall, 40% (n = 425) consented to participate, 25% (n = 243) refused and 35% (n = 394) did not respond. CONCLUSIONS While this study demonstrated disappointing outcomes, pre-recruitment letters should not be ruled out as an approach altogether. Rather, future research should explore whether other factors to increase motivation, such as intensity and timing, are feasible and acceptable for contacting cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12609000628246.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christine Paul
- Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour (PRCHB), University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI), New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
| | - Ryan Courtney
- Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour (PRCHB), University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI), New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
| | - Rob Sanson-Fisher
- Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour (PRCHB), University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI), New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
| | - Mariko Carey
- Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour (PRCHB), University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI), New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
| | - David Hill
- Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, The Cancer Council Victoria, Carlton, VIC, Australia
- Professorial Fellow, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Jody Simmons
- Cancer Prevention Centre, The Cancer Council Victoria, Carlton, VIC, Australia
| | - Shiho Rose
- Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour (PRCHB), University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI), New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials 2014; 15:5. [PMID: 24393291 PMCID: PMC3892115 DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 187] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2013] [Accepted: 12/20/2013] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Recruitment of sufficient participants in an efficient manner is still widely acknowledged to be a major challenge to the mounting and completion of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Few recruitment interventions have involved staff undertaking recruitment. This study aimed i) to understand the recruitment process from the perspective of recruiters actively recruiting RCT participants in six pragmatic RCTs, and ii) to identify opportunities for interventions to improve recruitment. Methods Interviews were undertaken with 72 individuals (32 doctors or RCT Chief investigators (CIs); 40 nurses/other health professionals) who were actively recruiting participants in six RCTs to explore their experiences of recruitment. The RCTs varied in scale, duration, and clinical contexts. Interviews were fully transcribed and analysed using qualitative content and thematic analytic methods derived from grounded theory. For this analysis, data were systematically extracted from each RCT and synthesised across all six RCTs to produce a detailed and nuanced understanding of the recruitment process from the perspectives of the recruiters. Results Recruiters readily identified organisational difficulties, fewer than expected eligible patients, and patients’ treatment preferences as the key barriers to recruitment. As they described their experiences of recruitment, several previously hidden issues related to their roles as researchers and clinicians emerged, imbued with discomfort and emotion. The synthesis across the RCTs showed that doctors were uncomfortable about aspects of patient eligibility and the effectiveness of interventions, whereas nurses were anxious about approaching potential RCT participants and conflicts between the research and their clinical responsibilities. Recruiters seemed unaware that their views contributed to recruitment difficulties. Their views were not known to RCT CIs. Training and support needs were identified for both groups of staff. Conclusions The synthesis showed that recruitment to these RCTs was a complex and fragile process. Clear obstacles were identified but hidden challenges related to recruiters’ roles undermined recruitment, unbeknown to RCT CIs. Qualitative research can elicit and identify the hidden challenges. Training and support are then needed for recruiters to become more comfortable with the design and principles of RCTs, so that they can engage more openly with potentially eligible participants and create a more resilient recruitment process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenny L Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Denicoff AM, McCaskill-Stevens W, Grubbs SS, Bruinooge SS, Comis RL, Devine P, Dilts DM, Duff ME, Ford JG, Joffe S, Schapira L, Weinfurt KP, Michaels M, Raghavan D, Richmond ES, Zon R, Albrecht TL, Bookman MA, Dowlati A, Enos RA, Fouad MN, Good M, Hicks WJ, Loehrer PJ, Lyss AP, Wolff SN, Wujcik DM, Meropol NJ. The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations. J Oncol Pract 2013; 9:267-76. [PMID: 24130252 PMCID: PMC3825288 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2013.001119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 120] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions. METHODS The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature. RESULTS Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations. CONCLUSIONS A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea M. Denicoff
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Worta McCaskill-Stevens
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Stephen S. Grubbs
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Suanna S. Bruinooge
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Robert L. Comis
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Peggy Devine
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - David M. Dilts
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Michelle E. Duff
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Jean G. Ford
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Steven Joffe
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Lidia Schapira
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Kevin P. Weinfurt
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Margo Michaels
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Derek Raghavan
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Ellen S. Richmond
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Robin Zon
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Terrance L. Albrecht
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Michael A. Bookman
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Afshin Dowlati
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Rebecca A. Enos
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Mona N. Fouad
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Marjorie Good
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - William J. Hicks
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Patrick J. Loehrer
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Alan P. Lyss
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Steven N. Wolff
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Debra M. Wujcik
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Neal J. Meropol
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Simmons RG, Lee YCA, Stroup AM, Edwards SL, Rogers A, Johnson C, Wiggins CL, Hill DA, Cress RD, Lowery J, Walters ST, Jasperson K, Higginbotham JC, Williams MS, Burt RW, Schwartz MD, Kinney AY. Examining the challenges of family recruitment to behavioral intervention trials: factors associated with participation and enrollment in a multi-state colonoscopy intervention trial. Trials 2013; 14:116. [PMID: 23782890 PMCID: PMC3691526 DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2012] [Accepted: 04/02/2013] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is one of the most effective methods of cancer prevention and detection, particularly for individuals with familial risk. Recruitment of family members to behavioral intervention trials remains uniquely challenging, owing to the intensive process required to identify and contact them. Recruiting at-risk family members involves contacting the original cancer cases and asking them to provide information about their at-risk relatives, who must then be contacted for study enrollment. Though this recruitment strategy is common in family trials, few studies have compared influences of patient and relative participation to nonparticipation. Furthermore, although use of cancer registries to identify initial cases has increased, to our knowledge no study has examined the relationship between registries and family recruitment outcomes. METHODS This study assessed predictors of case participation and relative enrollment in a recruitment process that utilized state cancer registries. Participation characteristics were analyzed with separate multivariable logistic regressions in three stages: (1) cancer registry-contacted colorectal cancer (CRC) cases who agreed to study contact; (2) study-contacted CRC cases who provided at-risk relative information; and (3) at-risk relatives contacted for intervention participation. RESULTS Cancer registry source was predictive of participation for both CRC cases and relatives, though relative associations (odds ratios) varied across registries. Cases were less likely to participate if they were Hispanic or nonwhite, and were more likely to participate if they were female or younger than 50 at cancer diagnosis. At-risk relatives were more likely to participate if they were from Utah, if another family member was also participating in the study, or if they had previously had a colonoscopy. The number of eligible cases who had to be contacted to enroll one eligible relative varied widely by registry, from 7 to 81. CONCLUSIONS Family recruitment utilizing cancer registry-identified cancer cases is feasible, but highly dependent on both the strategies and protocols of those who are recruiting and on participant characteristics such as sex, race, or geography. Devising comprehensive recruitment protocols that specifically target those less likely to enroll may help future research meet recruitment goals. TRIAL REGISTRATION Family Colorectal Cancer Awareness and Risk Education Project NCT01274143.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca G Simmons
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA
| | - Yuan-Chin Amy Lee
- Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, 375 Chipeta Way, Suite A, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA
| | - Antoinette M Stroup
- Utah Cancer Registry, 650 Komas Drive, Suite 106B, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, 30 N 1900 E, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA
| | - Sandra L Edwards
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA
| | - Amy Rogers
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA
| | - Christopher Johnson
- Cancer Data Registry of Idaho, 615 N. 7th Street, PO Box 1278, Boise, ID, 83701, USA
| | - Charles L Wiggins
- New Mexico Tumor Registry, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, MSC 11 6020, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA
| | - Deirdre A Hill
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and University of New Mexico Cancer Research and Treatment Center, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, MSC 10 5550, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA
| | - Rosemary D Cress
- California Cancer Registry, 1825 Bell Street, Suite 102, Sacramento, CA, 95825, USA
| | - Jan Lowery
- University of Colorado Cancer Center, 13001 E. 17th St., MS F-538, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA
| | - Scott T Walters
- University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd, EAD 709, Fort Worth, TX, 76107, USA
| | - Kory Jasperson
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA
| | - John C Higginbotham
- Institute for Rural Health, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa Campus, 850 5th Avenue East, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35401, USA
| | - Marc S Williams
- Genomic Medicine Institute, Geisinger Research, Weis Center for Research, 100 N Academy Ave. Mail Stop 26-20, Danville, PA, 17822, USA
| | - Randall W Burt
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, 30 N 1900 E, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Georgetown University, Harris Building, 3300 Whitehaven St., N.W., Washington DC, 20007, USA
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, 3970 Reservoir Rd NW E501, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Anita Y Kinney
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, 30 N 1900 E, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Ortiz AP, Colón-López V, Girona-Lozada G, Botello-Harbaum MT, Sheon N, Guiot HM, Román-Torres L, Díaz-Santana MV, Miranda-De LS, Palefsky JM. Report of the 2012 capacity building for HIV-HPV clinical trials recruitment among minority underserved populations of Hispanic origin in Puerto Rico. PUERTO RICO HEALTH SCIENCES JOURNAL 2012; 31:185-187. [PMID: 23038895 PMCID: PMC3973029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Ana Patricia Ortiz
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus, San Juan, Puerto Rico
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Yonemori K, Hirakawa A, Ando M, Hirata T, Yunokawa M, Shimizu C, Tamura K, Fujiwara Y. Content analysis of oncology-related pharmaceutical advertising in a peer-reviewed medical journal. PLoS One 2012; 7:e44393. [PMID: 22952970 PMCID: PMC3432119 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044393] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2012] [Accepted: 08/03/2012] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The oncology market represents one of the largest pharmaceutical markets in any medical field, and printed advertising in medical journals is an important channel by which pharmaceutical companies communicate with healthcare professionals. The aim of the present study was to analyze the volume and content of and trends and changes in oncology-related advertising intended for healthcare professionals in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Information that could be included in advertisements to promote drug development and improve treatment strategies for cancer patients is discussed on the basis of the results of the analysis. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Overall, 6,720 advertisements covering 13,039 pages in a leading oncology medical journal published (by the American Society of Clinical Oncology) between January 2005 and December 2009 were analyzed. The advertisements targeting pharmaceuticals and clinical trials, in particular, were reviewed. A total of 6,720 advertisements covering 13,039 pages were included in the analysis. For the years 2005-2009, the percentages of total journal pages dedicated to advertising were 24.0%, 45.7%, 49.8%, 46.8%, and 49.8%, respectively. Package insert information and efficacy and safety explanations appeared in more than 80% of advertisements intended for pharmaceutical promotion. From 2005 to 2009, the overall quantity of drug advertisements decreased by approximately 13%, whereas advertisements calling for the enrollment of patients into registration trials increased by approximately 11%. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE Throughout the study period, oncology-related pharmaceutical advertisements occupied a considerable number of pages relative to other journal content. The proportion of advertisements on ongoing clinical trials increased progressively throughout the study period.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kan Yonemori
- Breast and Medical Oncology Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Jacobsen PB, Wells KJ, Meade CD, Quinn GP, Lee JH, Fulp WJ, Gray JE, Baz RC, Springett GM, Levine RM, Markham MJ, Schreiber FJ, Cartwright TH, Burke JM, Siegel RD, Malafa MP, Sullivan D. Effects of a brief multimedia psychoeducational intervention on the attitudes and interest of patients with cancer regarding clinical trial participation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:2516-21. [PMID: 22614993 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2011.39.5186] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The negative attitudes of patients with cancer regarding clinical trials are an important contributor to low participation rates. This study evaluated whether a brief psychoeducational intervention was effective in improving patients' attitudes as well as their knowledge, self-efficacy for decision making, receptivity to receiving more information, and general willingness to participate in clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 472 adults with cancer who had not been asked previously to participate in a clinical trial were randomly assigned to receive printed educational information about clinical trials or a psychoeducational intervention that provided similar information and also addressed misperceptions and concerns about clinical trials. The primary (attitudes) and secondary outcomes (knowledge, self-efficacy, receptivity, and willingness) were assessed via patient self-report before random assignment and 7 to 28 days later. RESULTS Patients who received the psychoeducational intervention showed more positive attitudes toward clinical trials (P = .016) and greater willingness to participate (P = .011) at follow-up than patients who received printed educational information. Evidence of an indirect effect of intervention assignment on willingness to participate (estimated at 0.168; 95% CI, 0.088 to 0.248) suggested that the benefits of psychoeducation on willingness to participate were explained by the positive impact of psychoeducation on attitudes toward clinical trials. CONCLUSION A brief psychoeducational intervention can improve the attitudes of patients with cancer toward clinical trials and thereby increase their willingness to participate in clinical trials. Findings support conducting additional research to evaluate effects of this intervention on quality of decision making and rates of participation among patients asked to enroll onto therapeutic clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul B Jacobsen
- Moffitt Cancer Centerand University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Leighton P, Lonsdale AJ, Tildsley J, King AJ. The willingness of patients presenting with advanced glaucoma to participate in a trial comparing primary medical vs primary surgical treatment. Eye (Lond) 2011; 26:300-6. [PMID: 22094298 DOI: 10.1038/eye.2011.279] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
AIM The aim of this study is to examine the attitudes of patients, who presented with advanced glaucoma in at least one eye, to participation in a randomised prospective trial comparing primary medical treatment with primary surgical treatment for advanced glaucoma. METHODS Patients who had presented with advanced glaucoma (>15 dB loss mean deviation on Humphrey visual field testing) in at least one eye were asked to participate. Five focus groups comprising of 4-8 patients and consisting of 29 patients in total were undertaken. The group interviews were conducted by two experienced qualitative researchers, an ophthalmic clinician was present to clarify technical issues. The focus group discussions were taped and transcribed in full, and analysed through a process of familiarisation, open (inductive) coding, theme generation, theme refinement, and thematic mapping. RESULTS Three overarching themes were identified: (1) the extent of patients' knowledge, (2) anxieties about surgery, and (3) concerns about compromised care due to trial involvement; these themes were further classified into eight sub-themes. CONCLUSIONS Patients' willingness to participate in randomised clinical studies is significantly connected to their level of comprehension and insight about the medical condition, its treatment, and the research process; misunderstandings about any of these aspects may act as a significant barrier to trial recruitment. Recruitment rates for future randomised trials may be enhanced by ensuring that patients have full and accurate information about the treatment alternatives, and that uncertainty exists for best patient outcomes between treatment options, and reassuring potential participants that the research process, in particular randomisation, will not compromise clinical care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Leighton
- Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Dear RF, Barratt AL, Crossing S, Butow PN, Hanson S, Tattersall MH. Consumer input into research: the Australian Cancer Trials website. Health Res Policy Syst 2011; 9:30. [PMID: 21703017 PMCID: PMC3141790 DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-9-30] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2011] [Accepted: 06/26/2011] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Australian Cancer Trials website (ACTO) was publicly launched in 2010 to help people search for cancer clinical trials recruiting in Australia, provide information about clinical trials and assist with doctor-patient communication about trials. We describe consumer involvement in the design and development of ACTO and report our preliminary patient evaluation of the website. METHODS Consumers, led by Cancer Voices NSW, provided the impetus to develop the website. Consumer representative groups were consulted by the research team during the design and development of ACTO which combines a search engine, trial details, general information about trial participation and question prompt lists. Website use was analysed. A patient evaluation questionnaire was completed at one hospital, one week after exposure to the website. RESULTS ACTO's main features and content reflect consumer input. In February 2011, it covered 1, 042 cancer trials. Since ACTO's public launch in November 2010, until the end of February 2011, the website has had 2, 549 new visits and generated 17, 833 page views. In a sub-study of 47 patient users, 89% found the website helpful for learning about clinical trials and all respondents thought patients should have access to ACTO. CONCLUSIONS The development of ACTO is an example of consumers working with doctors, researchers and policy makers to improve the information available to people whose lives are affected by cancer and to help them participate in their treatment decisions, including consideration of clinical trial enrolment. Consumer input has ensured that the website is informative, targets consumer priorities and is user-friendly. ACTO serves as a model for other health conditions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel F Dear
- Sydney Medical School, Room 391, Blackburn Building, D06, The University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Patterson S, Mairs H, Borschmann R. Successful recruitment to trials: a phased approach to opening gates and building bridges. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011; 11:73. [PMID: 21595906 PMCID: PMC3114795 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-73] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2010] [Accepted: 05/19/2011] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The pragmatic randomised controlled trial is widely regarded as the gold standard method for evaluating the effectiveness of health care interventions. Successful conduct of trials and generalisation of findings depends upon efficient recruitment of representative samples, which often requires the collaboration of 'gatekeepers' who mediate access to potential participants. Effective negotiation of gatekeeping is thus vital to process and outcomes of trials and the quality of evidence. Whilst relevant literature contains discussion of the problems of recruitment and gatekeeping, little is known about how recruitment can be optimised and factors leading to successful recruitment. DISCUSSION As practised researchers with first-hand experience of gatekeeping, we were aware that some researchers recruit more effectively than others and curious about the ingredients of success. With the goal of developing practical guidance, we conducted a series of workshops with 19 expert researchers to investigate and map successful recruitment. Workshops were digitally recorded and transcribed. Analysis of discussion supported modelling of effective recruitment as a process involving three phases, each comprising two key tasks. Successful negotiation of set-up, alliance, and exchange require judicious deployment of interpersonal skills in an appropriately assertive manner. Researcher flexibility and credibility are vital for success, such that a foundation for rapprochement between the worlds of research and practice is established.Our model provides a framework to support design and implementation of recruitment activities and will enable trouble shooting and support recruitment, supervision and training of effective researchers. This, in turn will support delivery of trials on time and on budget, maximising return on investment in the production of evidence. SUMMARY Pragmatic trials are central to development of evidence based health care but often failure to recruit the necessary sample in a timely manner means many fail or require costly extensions. Gatekeeping is implicated in this. Drawing on the knowledge of 19 expert researchers, we argue that successful researchers are resourceful and personable, judiciously deploying interpersonal skills and expertise to engage with gatekeepers and establish a shared objective. We propose that understanding recruitment as a phased process can enhance design and conduct of trials, supporting completion on time, on budget.
Collapse
|
28
|
Leroy T, Christophe V, Penel N, Clisant S, Antoine P. Participation in randomised clinical trials is linked to emotion regulation strategies. Contemp Clin Trials 2010; 32:32-5. [PMID: 20840875 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2010.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2010] [Revised: 08/27/2010] [Accepted: 09/07/2010] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Cancer patients' anxiety may curb their enrolment in clinical trials (CTs). Thus, the strategies they employ to reduce their anxiety may also determine their enrolment in CTs. The purposes of this study are (1) to compare the anxiety and emotion regulation strategies between patients who are enrolled in CTs (cases) and patients receiving standard cancer treatments who have never taken part in any CT (controls), and (2) to assess the links between these strategies and anxiety. METHODS In total, 76 cases and 108 controls completed two validated questionnaires assessing their emotion regulation style (ERQ) and anxiety (STAI-Y). RESULTS Overall, anxiety scores in cases and controls do not differ. The two groups do not differ in regards to their cognitive reappraisal of situations. However, cases inhibit their emotional expressions less than controls. Both cognitive reappraisal and emotional expressions are linked to lower scores of anxiety. CONCLUSIONS Patients enrolled in CTs do not seem to be more anxious than those receiving a standard treatment. However, cancer patients' anxiety depends on the emotion regulation strategies they use. Emotion regulation during physician-patient interactions should be investigated further as a possible factor for CT enrolment determination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tanguy Leroy
- Université Lille Nord de France, Université Lille 3 URECA EA 1059, BP 60149, F-59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex, France.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Schroen AT, Petroni GR, Wang H, Gray R, Wang XF, Cronin W, Sargent DJ, Benedetti J, Wickerham DL, Djulbegovic B, Slingluff CL. Preliminary evaluation of factors associated with premature trial closure and feasibility of accrual benchmarks in phase III oncology trials. Clin Trials 2010; 7:312-21. [PMID: 20595245 PMCID: PMC3977321 DOI: 10.1177/1740774510374973] [Citation(s) in RCA: 76] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A major challenge for randomized phase III oncology trials is the frequent low rates of patient enrollment, resulting in high rates of premature closure due to insufficient accrual. PURPOSE We conducted a pilot study to determine the extent of trial closure due to poor accrual, feasibility of identifying trial factors associated with sufficient accrual, impact of redesign strategies on trial accrual, and accrual benchmarks designating high failure risk in the clinical trials cooperative group (CTCG) setting. METHODS A subset of phase III trials opened by five CTCGs between August 1991 and March 2004 was evaluated. Design elements, experimental agents, redesign strategies, and pretrial accrual assessment supporting accrual predictions were abstracted from CTCG documents. Percent actual/predicted accrual rate averaged per month was calculated. Trials were categorized as having sufficient or insufficient accrual based on reason for trial termination. Analyses included univariate and bivariate summaries to identify potential trial factors associated with accrual sufficiency. RESULTS Among 40 trials from one CTCG, 21 (52.5%) trials closed due to insufficient accrual. In 82 trials from five CTCGs, therapeutic trials accrued sufficiently more often than nontherapeutic trials (59% vs 27%, p = 0.05). Trials including pretrial accrual assessment more often achieved sufficient accrual than those without (67% vs 47%, p = 0.08). Fewer exclusion criteria, shorter consent forms, other CTCG participation, and trial design simplicity were not associated with achieving sufficient accrual. Trials accruing at a rate much lower than predicted (<35% actual/predicted accrual rate) were consistently closed due to insufficient accrual. LIMITATIONS This trial subset under-represents certain experimental modalities. Data sources do not allow accounting for all factors potentially related to accrual success. CONCLUSION Trial closure due to insufficient accrual is common. Certain trial design factors appear associated with attaining sufficient accrual. Defining accrual benchmarks for early trial termination or redesign is feasible, but better accrual prediction methods are critically needed. Future studies should focus on identifying trial factors that allow more accurate accrual predictions and strategies that can salvage open trials experiencing slow accrual.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anneke T Schroen
- Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Lebel S, Rosberger Z, Edgar L, Devins GM. Emotional distress impacts fear of the future among breast cancer survivors not the reverse. J Cancer Surviv 2009; 3:117-27. [PMID: 19322661 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-009-0082-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2008] [Accepted: 02/26/2009] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Fear of the future is one of the most stressful aspects of having cancer. Research to date has conceptualized fear of the future as a precursor of distress or stress-response symptoms. Yet it is equally plausible that distress would predict increased fear of the future or that they would have a reciprocal influence on each other. The purpose of the present study was to examine the bidirectional relations between fear of the future and distress as well as intrusion and avoidance among breast cancer survivors at 3, 7, 11, and 15 months after diagnosis. METHODS We used a bivariate latent difference score model for dynamic change to examine these bidirectional relationships among 146 early-stage breast cancer survivors. Using Lisrel version 8.80, we examined four models testing different hypothesized relationships between fear of the future and distress and intrusion and avoidance. RESULTS Based on model fit evaluation, our data shows that decreases in distress over time lead to a reduction of fear of the future but that changes in fear do not lead to changes in distress. On the other hand, there is no relationship between changes in fear of the future and intrusion and avoidance over time. DISCUSSION Ongoing fear of the future does not appear to be a necessary condition for the development of stress-response symptoms. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS Future studies need to explore the role of distressing emotions in the development and exacerbation of fear of the future among cancer survivors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie Lebel
- School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 11 Marie Curie, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Spaar A, Frey M, Turk A, Karrer W, Puhan MA. Recruitment barriers in a randomized controlled trial from the physicians' perspective: a postal survey. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9:14. [PMID: 19254374 PMCID: PMC2653070 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-14] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2008] [Accepted: 03/02/2009] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The feasibility of randomized trials often depends on successful patient recruitment. Although numerous recruitment barriers have been identified it is unclear which of them complicate recruitment most. Also, most surveys have focused on the patients' perspective of recruitment barriers whereas the perspective of recruiting physicians has received less attention. Therefore, our aim was to conduct a postal survey among recruiting physicians of a multi-center trial to weigh barriers according to their impact on recruitment. Methods We identified any potential recruitment barriers from the literature and from our own experience with a multi-center trial of respiratory rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We developed and pilot-tested a self-administered questionnaire where recruiting physicians were asked to express their agreement with statements about recruitment barriers on a Likert-type scale from 1 (full agreement with statement = very substantial recruitment barrier) to 7 (no agreement with statement = no recruitment barrier). Results 38 of 55 recruiting physicians returned questionnaires (69% response rate), of which 35 could be analyzed (64% useable response rate). Recruiting physicians reported that "time constraints" (median agreement of 3, interquartile range 2–5) had the most negative impact on recruitment followed by "difficulties including identified eligible patients" (median agreement of 5, IQR 3–6). Other barriers such as "trial design barriers", "lack of access to treatment", "individual barriers of recruiting physicians" or "insufficient training of recruiting physicians" were perceived to have little or no impact on patient recruitment. Conclusion Physicians perceived time constraints as the most relevant recruitment barrier in a randomized trial. To overcome recruitment barriers interventions, that are affordable for both industry- and investigator-driven trials, need to be developed and tested in randomized trials. Trial registration ISRCTN84612310
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne Spaar
- Horten Centre for Patient-Oriented Research and Knowledge Transfer, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Strategies to enhance patient recruitment and retention in research involving patients with a first episode of mental illness. Contemp Clin Trials 2008; 29:862-6. [DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.07.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2008] [Revised: 07/18/2008] [Accepted: 07/28/2008] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
|
33
|
Tooher RL, Middleton PF, Crowther CA. A thematic analysis of factors influencing recruitment to maternal and perinatal trials. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2008; 8:36. [PMID: 18687110 PMCID: PMC2532678 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-8-36] [Citation(s) in RCA: 67] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2007] [Accepted: 08/07/2008] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recruitment of eligible participants remains one of the biggest challenges to successful completion of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Only one third of trials recruit on time, often requiring a lengthy extension to the recruitment period. We identified factors influencing recruitment success and potentially effective recruitment strategies. METHODS We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1966 to December Week 2, 2006, the Cochrane Library Methodology Register in December 2006, and hand searched reference lists for studies of any design which focused on recruitment to maternal/perinatal trials, or if no studies of maternal or perinatal research could be identified, other areas of healthcare. Studies of nurses' and midwives' attitudes to research were included as none specifically about trials were located. We synthesised the data narratively, using a basic thematic analysis, with themes derived from the literature and after discussion between the authors. RESULTS Around half of the included papers (29/53) were specific to maternal and perinatal healthcare. Only one study was identified which focused on factors for maternal and perinatal clinicians and only seven studies considered recruitment strategies specific to perinatal research. Themes included: participant assessment of risk; recruitment process; participant understanding of research; patient characteristics; clinician attitudes to research and trials; protocol issues; and institutional or organisational issues. While no reliable evidence base for strategies to enhance recruitment was identified in any of the review studies, four maternal/perinatal primary studies suggest that specialised recruitment staff, mass mailings, physician referrals and strategies targeting minority women may increase recruitment. However these findings may only be applicable to the particular trials and settings studied. CONCLUSION Although factors reported by both participants and clinicians which influence recruitment were quite consistent across the included studies, studies comparing different recruitment strategies were largely missing. Trials of different recruitment strategies could be embedded in large multicentre RCTs, with strategies tailored to the factors specific to the trial and institution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L Tooher
- Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Philippa F Middleton
- Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Caroline A Crowther
- Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Development of a complex intervention improved randomization and informed consent in a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 62:29-36. [PMID: 18619811 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 121] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2007] [Revised: 12/19/2007] [Accepted: 02/12/2008] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Multicenter randomized trials are required for pragmatic evaluations of health care interventions, but recruitment is difficult. Systematic reviews failed to identify robust strategies to improve recruitment. We developed and evaluated a complex intervention to increase levels of randomization and informed consent. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING The ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) trial compares radical surgery, radical conformal radiotherapy, and active monitoring for men aged 50-69 years with localized prostate cancer. The intervention was developed using qualitative research methods (content, thematic and conversation analysis). Rates of randomization and immediate acceptance of allocation were measured every 6 months to evaluate the impact of the intervention. RESULTS The complex intervention comprised reviews of centers falling below study targets, training programmes, documents and individually tailored feedback. Over 65% of eligible participants consented to randomization. Trial participants became increasingly well informed as immediate acceptance of allocation rose from 65% to 81% between 2001 and 2005. CONCLUSION This complex intervention resulted in high levels of randomization and informed consent in a difficult trial. The generic aspects of the intervention could be applied to other trials to maximize randomization and informed consent, and allow the mounting of trials previously considered too difficult.
Collapse
|
35
|
Joseph G, Kaplan CP, Pasick RJ. Recruiting low-income healthy women to research: an exploratory study. ETHNICITY & HEALTH 2007; 12:497-519. [PMID: 17978946 PMCID: PMC4497777 DOI: 10.1080/13557850701616961] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The study goals were (1) to assess the feasibility of using an existing telephone health information and referral service for low-income, ethnically diverse women to recruit women for research participation; (2) to assess the feasibility of recruiting low-income, African American and Latino men into health research through the women callers to the telephone service; and (3) to describe the challenges women face and the strategies they use when talking to men about the men's health and research participation. DESIGN We recruited women for individual semi-structured qualitative interviews via the Every Woman Counts (EWC) telephone information and referral service, a California Department of Health Services Cancer Detection Program. This paper describes our eligibility and recruitment assessment, and our qualitative data from 23 interviews with low-income African American and Latino women who called EWC. RESULTS We found that it was feasible to recruit women, but not to recruit men through women who call this telephone service. Almost 50% (113) of women demographically eligible for recruitment, completed our screening questionnaire, despite calling EWC for a different purpose. Some 48% (54) of those women were eligible for an interview. Of interview-eligible women, 58% (10) of African Americans and 35% (13) of Latinos completed an interview. Only 17% (4) of women referred a man for participation in an interview for our study. Several themes emerged from our analysis of interview data: (1) women's role in men's health can be significant but is often uneasy; (2) challenges when talking to men about their health include health access, gender dynamics, and men's fear of health care; (3) women's understanding of research may be limited; (4) women use a range of strategies to address and overcome men's resistance to taking care of their health and participating in research. CONCLUSIONS The challenges women face when talking with men about their health affect their ability to effectively speak to men about research participation. However, EWC and similar telephone health services may be an effective means for recruiting low-income women to chemoprevention and other studies requiring healthy participants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Galen Joseph
- University of California, Comprehensive Cancer Center and Institute for Health Policy Studies, San Francisco, CA 94143-0981, USA.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Lebel S, Rosberger Z, Edgar L, Devins GM. Comparison of four common stressors across the breast cancer trajectory. J Psychosom Res 2007; 63:225-32. [PMID: 17719358 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2006] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Studies of cancer stressors have typically assessed a limited number of factors using cross-sectional designs. There is little information about aspects of cancer that patients consider most stressful at different points along the disease trajectory. METHODS Seventy-two breast cancer patients rated the degrees to which they experienced each of four common cancer concerns as stressful during the preceding month at 3, 7, 11, and 15 months, and at 6 years after diagnosis. Stressors included fear of the future; physical limitations; pain; and problems with family or friends due to cancer. RESULTS Overall, the cancer concerns were rated as not especially stressful, with the exception of fear of the future which was the most stressful of the four concerns on all measurement occasions. Although fear of the future decreased from 3 to 7 months following diagnosis, it remained elevated at all of other time points. Physical limitations and pain were reported to induce equivalent levels of stress and their intensities decreased over time. However, there was a resurgence of the stressfulness of physical limitations and pain at the 6-year follow-up point when women experienced a second cancer during the long-term follow-up period. At all measurement occasions, breast cancer survivors reported very low levels of concern in relation to family and friends. CONCLUSION Breast cancer can be stressful for years after diagnosis for some women and especially for those who experience a second cancer. Fear of the future is the most pressing target for psychosocial interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie Lebel
- Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|