Can patient decision aids help people make good decisions about participating in clinical trials? A study protocol

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Developing model biobanking consent language: what matters to prospective participants?

BACKGROUND

Efforts to improve informed consent have led to calls for providing information a reasonable person would want to have, in a way that facilitates understanding of the reasons why one might or might not want to participate. At the same time, advances in large-scale genomic research have expanded both the opportunities and the risks for participants, families, and communities. To advance the use of effective consent materials that reflect this landscape, we used empirical data to develop model consent language, as well as brief questions to assist people in thinking about their own values relative to participation.

METHODS

We conducted in-person interviews to gather preliminary input on these materials from a diverse sample (n = 32) of the general population in Nashville, Tennessee. We asked them to highlight information they found especially reassuring or concerning, their hypothetical willingness to participate, and their opinions about the values questions.

RESULTS

Consent information most often highlighted as reassuring included the purpose of the biobank, the existence and composition of a multidisciplinary oversight committee, the importance of participants' privacy and efforts to protect it, and controlled access to a scientific database. Information most often highlighted as concerning included the deposition of data in a publicly accessible database, the risk of unintended access to data, the potential for non-research use of data, and use of medical record information in general. Seventy-five percent of participants indicated initial willingness to participate in the hypothetical biobank; this decreased to 66% as participants more closely considered the information over the course of the interview. A large majority rated the values questions as helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

These results are consistent with other research on public perspectives on biobanking and genomic cohort studies, suggesting that our model language effectively captures commonly expressed reasons for and against participation. Our study enriches this literature by connecting specific consent form disclosures with qualitative data regarding what participants found especially reassuring or concerning and why. Interventions that facilitate individuals' closer engagement with consent information may result in participation decisions more closely aligned with their values.

Thought leader perspectives on benefits and harms in precision medicine research

Precision medicine research is underway to identify targeted approaches to improving health and preventing disease. However, such endeavors raise significant privacy and confidentiality concerns. The objective of this study was to elucidate the potential benefits and harms associated with precision medicine research through in-depth interviews with a diverse group of thought leaders, including primarily U.S.-based experts and scholars in the areas of ethics, genome research, health law, historically-disadvantaged populations, informatics, and participant-centric perspectives, as well as government officials and human subjects protections leaders. The results suggest the prospect of an array of individual and societal benefits, as well as physical, dignitary, group, economic, psychological, and legal harms. Relative to the way risks and harms are commonly described in consent forms for precision medicine research, the thought leaders we interviewed arguably emphasized a somewhat different set of issues. The return of individual research results, harm to socially-identifiable groups, the value-dependent nature of many benefits and harms, and the risks to the research enterprise itself emerged as important cross-cutting themes. Our findings highlight specific challenges that warrant concentrated care during the design, conduct, dissemination, and translation of precision medicine research and in the development of consent materials and processes.

Improving informed consent: Stakeholder views

PURPOSE

Innovation will be required to improve the informed consent process in research. We aimed to obtain input from key stakeholders-research participants and those responsible for obtaining informed consent-to inform potential development of a multimedia informed consent "app."

METHODS

This descriptive study used a mixed-methods approach. Five 90-minute focus groups were conducted with volunteer samples of former research participants and researchers/research staff responsible for obtaining informed consent. Participants also completed a brief survey that measured background information and knowledge and attitudes regarding research and the use of technology. Established qualitative methods were used to conduct the focus groups and data analysis.

RESULTS

We conducted five focus groups with 41 total participants: three groups with former research participants (total n = 22), and two groups with researchers and research coordinators (total n = 19). Overall, individuals who had previously participated in research had positive views regarding their experiences. However, further discussion elicited that the informed consent process often did not meet its intended objectives. Findings from both groups are presented according to three primary themes: content of consent forms, experience of the informed consent process, and the potential of technology to improve the informed consent process. A fourth theme, need for lay input on informed consent, emerged from the researcher groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings add to previous research that suggests that the use of interactive technology has the potential to improve the process of informed consent. However, our focus-group findings provide additional insight that technology cannot replace the human connection that is central to the informed consent process. More research that incorporates the views of key stakeholders is needed to ensure that multimedia consent processes do not repeat the mistakes of paper-based consent forms.

A qualitative exploration of the informed consent process in hematopoietic cell transplantation clinical research and opportunities for improvement

Informed consent (IC) struggles to meet the ethical principles it strives to embody in the context of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Patients often participate in multiple clinical trials making it difficult to effectively inform the participants and fulfill complex regulations. The recent Notice of Proposed Rule Making would make major changes to federal requirements, providing a timely opportunity to evaluate existing practice. Twenty health care professionals within a Midwest Academic Medical Center involved in obtaining IC in the HCT clinic or involved in patient care during or after the IC process were interviewed to understand: (1) how they approached the IC process; (2) how they described a 'successful' IC process; and (3) opportunities for innovation. Narrative and discourse analyses of interviews indicate that providers understand IC to be a collaborative process requiring engagement and participation of providers, patients and caregivers. 'Markers of success' were identified including cognitive, affective and procedural markers focusing on patient understanding and comfort with the decision to participate. Opportunities for innovating the process included use of decision aids and tablet-based technology, and better use of patient portals. Our findings suggest specific interventions for the IC process that could support the process of consent for providers, patients and caregivers.

Decisional conflict in asthma patients: a cross sectional study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at determining the level of decisional conflict in asthmatic individuals facing recommendation-based decisions provided to improve asthma control.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study performed on a convenience sample of 50 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with a diagnosis of asthma. They completed a decisional conflict scale (possible range of 0-100%), asthma knowledge and control questionnaires (both 0% and 100%), and a general questionnaire on socio-demographic characteristics. A decisional conflict was considered clinically significant with a score greater than 37.5%. Simple descriptive statistics were used to investigate associations with decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Participants were mainly women (76%) and diagnosed with mild asthma (72%). The median age (1st and 3rd quartile) was 25 years (22 and 42). The median score (1st and 3rd quartile) of decisional conflict was 33% (24 and 44). A clinically significant score (>37.5%) was obtained in 36% of subjects. A statistically significant negative correlation between the knowledge score and the decisional conflict score (r(p) = -0.38; p = 0.006) was observed. The level of knowledge was the only statistically independent variable associated with the decisional conflict score (p = 0.0043).

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of patients with asthma have a clinically significant level of decisional conflict when facing decisions aimed at improving asthma control. Patients with poor knowledge of asthma are more at risk of clinically significant level of decisional conflict. These findings support the relevance of providing asthmatic patients with relevant information in decision aids.

Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials

Background

Informed consent of trial participants is both an ethical and a legal requirement. When facing a decision about trial participation, potential participants are provided with information about the trial and have the opportunity to have any questions answered before their degree of ‘informed-ness’ is assessed, usually subjectively, and before they are asked to sign a consent form. Currently, standardised methods for assessing informed consent have tended to be focused on aspects of understanding and associated outcomes, rather than on the process of consent and the steps associated with decision-making.

Methods

Potential trial participants who were approached regarding participation in one of three randomised controlled trials were asked to complete a short questionnaire to measure their deliberation about trial participation. A total of 136 participants completed the 10-item questionnaire (DelibeRATE) before they made an explicit decision about trial participation (defined as signing the clinical trial consent form). Overall DelibeRATE scores were compared and investigated for differences between trial consenters and refusers.

Results

No differences in overall DelibeRATE scores were identified. In addition, there was no significant difference between overall score and the decision to participate, or not, in the parent trial.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively measure the deliberation stage of the informed consent decision-making process of potential trial participants across different conditions and clinical areas. Although there were no differences detected in overall scores or scores of trial consenters and refusers, we did identify some interesting findings. These findings should be taken into consideration by those designing trials and others interested in developing and implementing measures of potential trial participants decision making during the informed consent process for research.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register ISRCTN60695184 (date of registration: 13 May 2009), ISRCTN80061723 (date of registration: 8 March 2010), ISRCTN69423238 (date of registration: 18 November 2010)

Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials: a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation

Background

Informed consent is regarded as a cornerstone of ethical healthcare research and is a requirement for most clinical research studies. Guidelines suggest that prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) participants should understand a basic amount of key information about the RCTs they are being asked to enrol in in order to provide valid informed consent. This information is usually provided to potential participants in a patient information leaflet (PIL). There is evidence that some trial participants fail to understand key components of trial processes or rationale. As such, the existing approach to information provision for potential RCT participants may not be optimal. Decision aids have been used for a variety of treatment and screening decisions to improve knowledge, but focus more on overall decision quality, and may be helpful to those making decisions about participating in an RCT. We investigated the feasibility of using a tool to identify which items recommended for good quality decision making are present in UK PILs.

Methods

PILs were sampled from UK registered Clinical Trials Unit websites across a range of clinical areas. The evaluation tool, which is based on standards for supporting decision making, was applied to 20 PILs. Two researchers independently rated each PIL using the tool. In addition, word count and readability were assessed.

Results

PILs scored poorly on the evaluation tool with the majority of leaflets scoring less than 50%. Specifically, presenting probabilities, clarifying and expressing values and structured guidance in deliberation and communication sub-sections scored consistently poorly. Tool score was associated with word count (r = 0.802, P <0.01); there was no association between score and readability (r = -0.372, P = 0.106).

Conclusions

The tool was feasible to use to evaluate PILs for UK RCTs. PILs did not meet current standards of information to support good quality decision making. Writers of information leaflets could use the evaluation tool as a framework during PIL development to help ensure that items are included which promote and support more informed decisions about trial participation. Further research is required to evaluate the inclusion of such information.

Determining information for inclusion in a decision-support intervention for clinical trial participation: a modified Delphi approach

BACKGROUND

The use of decision-support interventions in the context of decisions about trial participation is an emergent field. There is a lack of evidence about what information is deemed important to support decisions about informed consent for clinical trials, and whether different groups agree on the information for inclusion.

PURPOSE

The overall objective was to determine the items which different stakeholder groups viewed to be important for inclusion in a decision-support tool when making decisions about clinical trial participation, with a view to use these as a framework for developing decision-support tools in this context. This is the first study to have addressed this issue.

METHODS

A modified Delphi method was used to determine agreement on importance of items. The 'stakeholder' panel was made up of 49 individuals from 5 groups: 11 trialists, 6 research nurses, 7 ethics committee chairs, 9 decision-support experts, and 16 patients (9 trial experienced and 7 trial non-experienced). Two rounds of rating were completed. Items with a median of 7-10 with ≥65% of any one group (from aggregate ratings) in agreement were considered important for inclusion.

RESULTS

The stakeholder panel achieved consensus on the majority of items included (60/66), agreeing that these were important for inclusion in a decision-support tool for trial participation. These included items covering information about trial participation and standard care, information on the likelihood of receiving different treatments, information to help patients determine what matters most to them, ensuring that the information is balanced, guidance on how to make a decision, disclosure of any conflicts of interest, using plain language in the tool, and guidance on the decision-support development process. Some areas of divergence among the panel were also identified relating to the use of patient stories.

LIMITATIONS

Selection bias may be a limitation in this study due to the manner in which the participants were invited to take part, and therefore, the representativeness, and reproducibility with another group of stakeholders, may differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Agreement was obtained on a number of items, which we recommend should be used as a framework to develop useful tools to support decision-making about participation in clinical trials.

Shared decision-making and health for First Nations, Métis and Inuit women: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Little is known about shared decision-making (SDM) with Métis, First Nations and Inuit women ("Aboriginal women"). SDM is a collaborative process that engages health care professional(s) and the client in making health decisions and is fundamental for informed consent and patient-centred care. The objective of this study is to explore Aboriginal women's health and social decision-making needs and to engage Aboriginal women in culturally adapting an SDM approach.

METHODS

Using participatory research principles and guided by a postcolonial theoretical lens, the proposed mixed methods research will involve three phases. Phase I is an international systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions for Aboriginal peoples' health decision-making. Developed following dialogue with key stakeholders, proposed methods are guided by the Cochrane handbook and include a comprehensive search, screening by two independent researchers, and synthesis of findings. Phases II and III will be conducted in collaboration with Minwaashin Lodge and engage an urban Aboriginal community of women in an interpretive descriptive qualitative study. In Phase II, 10 to 13 Aboriginal women will be interviewed to explore their health/social decision-making experiences. The interview guide is based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and previous decisional needs assessments, and as appropriate may be adapted to findings from the systematic review. Digitally-recorded interviews will be transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively to identify participant decision-making approaches and needs when making health/social decisions. In Phase III, there will be cultural adaptation of an SDM facilitation tool, the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide, by two focus groups consisting of five to seven Aboriginal women. The culturally adapted guide will undergo usability testing through individual interviews with five to six women who are about to make a health/social decision. Focus groups and individual interviews will be digitally-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed inductively to identify the adaptation required and usability of the adapted decision guide.

DISCUSSION

Findings from this research will produce a culturally sensitive intervention to facilitate SDM within a population of urban Aboriginal women, which can subsequently be evaluated to determine impacts on narrowing health/social decision-making inequities.

Supporting shared decisions when clinical evidence is low

There is growing interest in shared decision making (SDM) in the United States and globally, at both the clinical and policy levels. SDM is typically employed during "preference-sensitive" decisions, where there is equipoise between treatment options with equal or similar outcomes from a medical standpoint. In these situations, patients' preferences for the possible risks, benefits, and trade-offs between options are central to the decision. However, SDM also may be appropriate in clinical situations besides those in which data demonstrate equipoise. In situations of low evidence, where evidence is conflicting, unavailable or not applicable to an individual patient, supporting SDM can present unique challenges, above and beyond the challenges faced during more standard preference-sensitive decisions. This article discusses challenges in supporting shared decisions when clinical evidence is low, describes strategies that can facilitate SDM despite low evidence, and suggests avenues for future research to explore further these proposed strategies.

Do physicians' recommendations pull patients away from their preferred treatment options?

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making is especially advocated for preference-sensitive decisions. We investigated whether physicians' recommendations pull patients away from their preferred treatment option when making a preference-sensitive decision. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Inpatients (N = 102 with schizophrenia, N = 101 with multiple sclerosis) were presented with a hypothetical scenario (the choice between two drugs). They were first asked about their preferences concerning the two drugs and then they received a (fictitious) clinician's recommendation that was contrary to their preferences. Subsequently they made a final choice between the two drugs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measure was whether the patient followed the physician's advice in the hypothetical scenario. Thereby patient's (pre-recommendation) preferences served as a baseline.

RESULTS

In the decision scenario, about 48% of the patients with schizophrenia and 26% of the patients with multiple sclerosis followed the advice of their physician and thus chose the treatment option that went against their initial preferences. Patients who followed their physician's advice were less satisfied with their decision than patients not following their physician's advice (schizophrenia: t = 2.61, P = 0.01; multiple sclerosis: t = 2.67, P = 0.009).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

When sharing decisions with patients, physicians should be aware that their advice might influence patients' decisions away from their preferred treatment option. They should encourage their patients to identify their own preferences and help to find the treatment option most consistent with them.

Using decision aids may improve informed consent for research

This commentary argues that the existing approach towards obtaining informed consent for clinical research may be improved by using decision aids. Problems with the current approach include i) an emphasis on documentation to the detriment of good quality decision-making; ii) ad hoc rather than theory-based research studying how to improve informed consent; and iii) a lack of clarity around what is meant by 'comprehension' and how to measure it. Decision aids, which clearly improve patient treatment decisions but are new to decisions surrounding study participation, have strengths in precisely the areas where the informed consent literature is weak. Decision aids facilitate a process of decision-making, combining clear documentation, exercises to facilitate decision-making, and consultation. They are increasingly informed by theory and clear, empirically-derived standards. Furthermore, decision aid research has clearly defined and operationalized three indicators of good quality decision-making in situations where there is no objectively correct answer: demonstrable knowledge of key aspects of the decision, accurate perceptions of the probabilities of various outcomes, and a match between preferred outcomes and the choice made. We identify outstanding issues and propose a research approach that will determine whether the use of decision aids can improve the informed consent process.