The ethics of future trials: qualitative analysis of physicians' decision making

The mediating effect of shared decision-making in enhancing patient satisfaction with participation in cancer clinical trials

Objective

The participation of patients with advanced cancer(s) in clinical trials is vital for new drug development. We aimed to investigate patients' decision-making processes and satisfaction with their decision (SWD) to participate; the study's purpose was to provide results that can help support high-quality research in clinical trials. In addition, we explored how shared decision-making (SDM) mediates the relationship between understanding informed consent forms and SWD to participate in a clinical trial.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted. A purposive sample of 111 cancer patients was recruited, and they completed a questionnaire on demographic characteristics, SDM, and decision-making satisfaction to participate in a clinical trial. Correlation and mediation analyses were used.

Results

Participants aged under 65 years and with higher education reported high SWDs, and SDM significantly mediated the relationship between self-assessed understanding of informed consent forms and SWDs related to clinical trials.

Conclusions

SDM in patients with lung or liver cancer was a significant mediator between understanding the informed consent form and the patient's SWD. The higher the SWD level of participating in clinical trials, the better study team members' SDM involvement and the better the comprehension of informed consent forms. In addition, patients' age and education level should also be considered as influencing factors in SWD. This survey is the first in Taiwan to examine SDM in drug-related clinical trials. The study results provide evidence to support SDM in a clinical trial model and develop informed consent process policies in research facilities.

Healthcare professional behaviour: health impact, prevalence of evidence-based behaviours, correlates and interventions

Healthcare professional (HCP) behaviours are actions performed by individuals and teams for varying and often complex patient needs. However, gaps exist between evidence-informed care behaviours and the care provided. Implementation science seeks to develop generalizable principles and approaches to investigate and address care gaps, supporting HCP behaviour change while building a cumulative science. We highlight theory-informed approaches for defining HCP behaviour and investigating the prevalence of evidence-based care and known correlates and interventions to change professional practice. Behavioural sciences can be applied to develop implementation strategies to support HCP behaviour change and provide valid, reliable tools to evaluate these strategies. There are thousands of different behaviours performed by different HCPs across many contexts, requiring different implementation approaches. HCP behaviours can include activities related to promoting health and preventing illness, assessing and diagnosing illnesses, providing treatments, managing health conditions, managing the healthcare system and building therapeutic alliances. The key challenge is optimising behaviour change interventions that address barriers to and enablers of recommended practice. HCP behaviours may be determined by, but not limited to, Knowledge, Social influences, Intention, Emotions and Goals. Understanding HCP behaviour change is a critical to ensuring advances in health psychology are applied to maximize population health.

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critical care: a teenage angst or coming of age issue?

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) has been with us since the early days of our specialty, and in some ways it marks our progression and maturation. How we have dealt with SDD to date ranges from “thorn in our side” to “elephant in the room”. With high quality multi-national studies underway, how we deal with these results will mark our final maturation to adulthood as a specialty.

How to Make Feedback More Effective? Qualitative Findings from Pilot Testing of an Audit and Feedback Report for Endoscopists

Background. Audit and feedback (A/F) reports are one of the few knowledge translation activities that can effect change in physician behavior. In this study, we pilot-tested an endoscopist A/F report to elicit opinions about the proposed report's usability, acceptability and usefulness, and implications for knowledge translation. Methods. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with eleven endoscopists in Ontario, Canada. We tested an A/F report template comprising 9 validated, accepted colonoscopy quality indicators populated with simulated data. Interview transcripts were coded using techniques such as constant comparison and themes were identified inductively over several team meetings. Results. Four interrelated themes were identified: (1) overall perceptions of the A/F report; (2) accountability and consequences for poor performance; (3) motivation to change/improve skills; and (4) training for performance enhancement and available resources. The A/F report was well received; however, participants cited some possible threats to the report's effectiveness including the perceived threat of loss of privileges or licensing and the potential for the data to be dismissed. Conclusions. Participants agreed that A/F has the potential to improve colonoscopy performance. However, in order to be effective in changing physician behavior, A/F must be thoughtfully implemented with attention to the potential concerns of its recipients.