Patients' reasoning regarding the decision to participate in clinical cancer trials: an interview study

Legacy lessons from the COVID-19 era to improve trial participation and retention: Views from trial participants, PPIE contributors and trial staff across the NIHR portfolio

BACKGROUND

The Covid-19 pandemic had a profound effect on the delivery of healthcare research. Covid-19 research was prioritised and many non-essential trials were paused. This study explores the engagement experiences of trial participants', PPIE contributors' and trial staff during the Covid-19 pandemic and towards recovery and restoring a diverse and balanced UK clinical trials portfolio.

METHODS

Interviews and focus groups were undertaken with PPIE contributors, trial participants and trial staff members from NIHR research trials across the UK (November 2020-June 2021) across portfolio specialities: Cancer, Oral and Dental Health, Musculoskeletal Disorders, Cardiovascular Disease, Neurological Disorders, Primary Care, and Conditions associated with susceptibility to Covid-19 (Diabetes, Stroke, Respiratory Disorders). Topic guides were developed for each participant group and interviews were conducted over Zoom. The transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis in NVivo (V.12).

RESULTS

106 participants comprising, 45 PPIE contributors, 27 trial participants and 34 trial staff members were recruited. Three themes to engagement with trials during Covid-19 were developed. 1) Ensuring continued contact. Continued and tailored communication, having a trial point of contact and regular updates all enhanced trial engagement and retention. Patients' unfamiliarity with materials being sent electronically reduced engagement and trust. 2) A balanced move to remote consultations. Remote follow-up and monitoring were convenient and allowed for wider recruitment across the UK. Participants were more likely to discuss personal subjects in their own homes. Remote visits lacked a personal touch, some concerns over missed diagnoses or being unable to appreciate the situation, technical abilities or equipment failures were seen as barriers, especially for disadvantaged or older people. 3) The importance of feeling fully informed. Factors that supported attendance were knowledge about trial conduct adherence to Covid-19 regulations, social distancing, clear signage at the site and opportunities to ask questions. Barriers included not knowing what to expect and not feeling safe with rules and regulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight a number of ways to future proof trial delivery against future pandemics or disruptions such as offering online options to participate in research, ensuring consistent communication between participants and the research team, making sure participants feel fully informed and the continued reassurance of safety in the clinical setting.

Exploring the Decision-Making Process of People Living with HIV Enrolled in Antiretroviral Clinical Trials: A Qualitative Study of Decisions Guided by Trust and Emotions

The informed consent is an ethical and legal requirement for potential participants to enroll in a study. There is ample of evidence that understanding consent information and enrollment is challenging for participants in clinical trials. On the other hand, the reasoning process behind decision-making in HIV clinical trials remains mostly unexplored. This study aims to examine the decision-making process of people living with HIV currently participating in antiretroviral clinical trials and their understanding of informed consent. We conducted a qualitative socio-constructivist study using semi-structured interviews. Eleven participants were selected by purposive sampling in Argentina until data saturation was reached. A content analysis was performed. The findings highlight the fact that some participants decided to enroll on the spot, while others made the decision a few days later. In all cases, the decision was based on different aspects of trust (in doctors, in the clinical research site, in the clinical trials system) but also on emotions associated with HIV and/or treatment. Moreover, while people living with HIV felt truly informed after the consent dialogue with a researcher, consent forms were unintelligible and unfriendly. The immediacy of patient decision-making has rarely been described before. Enrollment in an HIV clinical trial is mainly a trust-based decision but this does not contradict the ethical values of autonomy, voluntariness, non-manipulation, and non-exploitation. Thus, trust is a key issue to be included in reshaping professional practices to ensure the integrity of the informed consent process.

Informed consent in cancer clinical drug trials in China: a narrative literature review of the past 20 years

BACKGROUND

Although the number of cancer clinical drug trials is increasing rapidly in China, issues concerning informed consent in this research context are understudied. By performing a narrative literature review, we aim to describe the current situation and identify the most salient challenges affecting informed consent in cancer clinical drug trials among adult patients in China since 2000.

METHODS

We searched Web of Science (WOS), PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library databases, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature Database on Disc (CBMdisc), Chinese Scientific Journals Fulltext Database (CQVIP), and WANFANG Data to identify relevant publications since 2000. Data were extracted by three reviewers on six items pertaining to study type, theme, and challenges.

RESULTS

We identified 37 unique manuscripts, from which 19 full texts were obtained and six were included in the review. All six studies were published in Chinese journals, and the publication years of the majority (five out of six) of the studies were 2015 or later. The authors of the six studies were all from clinical departments or ethical review committees at five hospitals in China. All of the included publications were descriptive studies. Publications reported challenges related to the following aspects of informed consent: information disclosure, patient understanding, voluntariness, authorization, and procedural steps.

CONCLUSION

Based on our analysis of publications over the past two decades, there are currently frequent challenges related to various aspects of informed consent in cancer clinical drug trials in China. Furthermore, only a limited number of high-quality research studies on informed consent in cancer clinical drug trials in China are available to date. Efforts toward improvement of informed consent practice, in the form of guidelines or further regulations in China, should draw on both experience from other countries and high-quality local evidence.

Trusting relationships between patients with non-curative cancer and healthcare professionals create ethical obstacles for informed consent in clinical trials: a grounded theory study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial participation for patients with non-curative cancer is unlikely to present personal clinical benefit, which raises the bar for informed consent. Previous work demonstrates that decisions by patients in this setting are made within a 'trusting relationship' with healthcare professionals. The current study aimed to further illuminate the nuances of this relationship from both the patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives.

METHODS

Face-to-face interviews using a grounded theory approach were conducted at a regional Cancer Centre in the United Kingdom. Interviews were performed with 34 participants (patients with non-curative cancer, number (n) = 16; healthcare professionals involved in the consent process, n = 18). Data analysis was performed after each interview using open, selective, and theoretical coding.

RESULTS

The 'Trusting relationship' with healthcare professionals underpinned patient motivation to participate, with many patients 'feeling lucky' and articulating an unrealistic hope that a clinical trial could provide a cure. Patients adopted the attitude of 'What the doctor thinks is best' and placed significant trust in healthcare professionals, focusing on mainly positive aspects of the information provided. Healthcare professionals recognised that trial information was not received neutrally by patients, with some expressing concerns that patients would consent to 'please' them. This raises the question: Within the trusting relationship between patients and healthcare professionals, 'Is it possible to provide balanced information?'. The theoretical model identified in this study is central to understanding how the trusting professional-patient relationship influences the decision-making process.

CONCLUSION

The significant trust placed on healthcare professionals by patients presented an obstacle to delivering balanced trial information, with patients sometimes participating to please the 'experts'. In this high-stakes scenario, it may be pertinent to consider strategies, such as separation of the clinician-researcher roles and enabling patients to articulate their care priorities and preferences within the informed consent process. Further research is needed to expand on these ethical conundrums and ensure patient choice and autonomy in trial participation are prioritised, particularly when the patient's life is limited.

Patient communication and experiences in cancer clinical drug trials: a mixed-method study at a specialist clinical trials unit

BACKGROUND

As cancer therapies increase in their complexity, effective communication among patients, physicians, and research staff is critical for optimal clinical trial management. Currently, we understand little about on-trial communication practices and patient trial experiences over time. This mixed-method study explored patient experiences of participating in a clinical drug trial at different time points, focussing on patient communication with trial staff.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in clinical drug trials conducted at the Parkville Cancer Clinical Trials Unit were invited to complete a tailored online survey and/or a qualitative interview. Patients were recruited to three cohorts based on time since the first trial treatment: new (≥ 1 to ≤ 13 weeks), mid- (≥ 14 to ≤ 26 weeks), and long-term (≥ 52 weeks) trial patients. Descriptive statistics were calculated for survey responses. Interview data were analysed thematically with a team-based approach. Survey and interview data were integrated at the intepretation stage.

RESULTS

From May to June 2021, 210 patients completed a survey (response rate 64%, 60% male), 20 completed interviews (60% male), and 18 completed both. More long-term trial patients (46%) participated than new (29%) and mid-trial patients (26%). Survey data showed high (> 90%) patient satisfaction with the provision of trial information and communication with trial staff across trial stages, and many reported trial experiences as above and beyond standard care. Interview data indicated that written trial information could be overwhelming, and verbal communication with the staff and physicians was highly valued, especially for enrolment and side effect management among long-term patients. Patients described the key points along the clinical trial trajectory that merit close attention: clear and well-communicated randomisation practices, reliable pathways for side effect reporting and prompt response from the trial staff, and end-of-trial transition management to avoid a sense of abandonment.

CONCLUSION

Patients reported high overall satisfaction with trial management but outlined key pinch points requiring improved communication practices. Establishing a range of effective communication practices among trial staff and physicians with patients in cancer clinical trials may have a wide range of positive effects on patient accrual, retention, and satisfaction.

A qualitative study examining newly diagnosed breast cancer patients' experiences of participating in the Alberta Moving Beyond Breast Cancer (AMBER) prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Decisions to participate in cancer trials are associated with uncertainty, distress, wanting to help find a cure, the hope for benefit, and altruism. There is a gap in the literature regarding research examining participation in prospective cohort studies. The aim of this study was to examine the experiences of newly diagnosed women with breast cancer participating in the AMBER Study to identify potential strategies to support patients' recruitment, retention, and motivation.

METHODS

Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients were recruited from the Alberta Moving Beyond Breast Cancer (AMBER) cohort study. Data were collected using semi-structured conversational interviews with 21 participants from February to May 2020. Transcripts were imported into NVivo software for management, organization, and coding. Inductive content analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Five main concepts associated with recruitment, retention, and motivation to participate were identified. These main concepts included: (1) personal interest in exercise and nutrition; (2) investment in individual results; (3) personal and professional interest in research; (4) burden of assessments; (5) importance of research staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer survivors participating in this prospective cohort study had numerous reasons for participating and these reasons could be considered in future studies to enhance participant recruitment and retention. Improving recruitment and retention in prospective cancer cohort studies could result in more valid and generalizable study findings that could improve the care of cancer survivors.

Predictors of consenting to participate in a clinical trial among urban cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Patient participation in clinical trials is influenced by demographic and other individual level characteristics. However, there is less research on the role of geography and neighborhood-level factors on clinical trial participation. This study identifies the demographic, clinical, geographic, and neighborhood predictors of consenting to a clinical trial among cancer patients at a large, urban, NCI-designated cancer center in the Mid-Atlantic region.

METHODS

We used demographic and clinical data from patients diagnosed with cancer between 2015 and 2017. We geocoded patient addresses and calculated driving distance to the cancer center. Additionally, we linked patient data to neighborhood-level educational attainment, social capital and cancer prevalence. Finally, we used generalized linear mixed-effects conditional logistic regression to identify individual and neighborhood-level predictors of consenting to a clinical trial.

RESULTS

Patients with higher odds of consenting to trials were: Non-Hispanic White, aged 50-69, diagnosed with breast, GI, head/neck, hematologic, or certain solid tumor cancers, those with cancers at regional stage, never/former tobacco users, and those with the highest neighborhood social capital index. Patients who lived further from the cancer center had higher odds of consenting to a trial. With every 1-km increase in residential distance, there was a 4% increase in the odds that patients would consent to a trial. Neither of the additional neighborhood-level variables predicted consenting to a clinical trial.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies important demographic, patient-level, and geographic factors associated with consenting to cancer clinical trials, and lays the groundwork for future research exploring the role of neighborhood-level factors in clinical trial participation.

Benefits of Participation in Clinical Trials: An Umbrella Review

Participation in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) entails taking part in the discovery of effects of health care interventions. The question of whether participants' outcomes are different to those of non-participants remains controversial. This umbrella review was aimed at assessing whether there are health benefits of participation in RCTs, compared to non-participation. After prospective registration (PROSPERO CRD42021287812), we searched the Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 2022 to identify relevant systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses. Data extraction and study quality assessment (AMSTAR-2) were performed by two independent reviewers. Of 914 records, six systematic reviews summarising 380 comparisons of RCT participants with non-participants met the inclusion criteria. In two reviews, the majority of comparisons were in favour of participation in RCTs. Of the total of comparisons, 69 (18.7%) were in favour of participation, reporting statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, 264 (71.7%) comparisons were not statistically significant, and 35 (9.5%) comparisons were in favour of non-participation. None of the reviews found a harmful effect of participation in RCTs. Our findings suggest that taking part in RCTs may be beneficial compared to non-participation.

Decision-making Among Hepatitis C Virus-negative Transplant Candidates Offered Organs from Donors with HCV Infection

Background

Historically, many organs from deceased donors with hepatitis C virus (HCV) were discarded. The advent of highly curative direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies motivated transplant centers to conduct trials of transplanting HCV-viremic organs (nucleic acid amplification test positive) into HCV-negative recipients, followed by DAA treatment. However, the factors that influence candidates' decisions regarding acceptance of transplant with HCV-viremic organs are not well understood.

Methods

To explore patient-level perceptions, influences, and experiences that inform candidate decision-making regarding transplant with organs from HCV-viremic donors, we conducted a qualitative semistructured interview study embedded within 3 clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of transplanting lungs and kidneys from HCV-viremic donors into HCV-negative recipients. The study was conducted from June 2019 to March 2021.

Results

Among 44 HCV-negative patients listed for organ transplant who were approached for enrollment in the applicable clinical trial, 3 approaches to decision-making emerged: positivist, risk analyses, and instinctual response. Perceptions of risk contributed to conceptualizations of factors influencing decisions. Moreover, most participants relied on multiple decision-making approaches, either simultaneously or sequentially.

Conclusions

Understanding how different decisional models influence patients' choices regarding transplant with organs from HCV-viremic donors may promote shared decision-making among transplant patients and providers.

Hope and meaning-making in phase 1 oncology trials: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence on patient-participant experiences

Background

Phase 1 drug trials are popular treatment options for patients with advanced disease, despite the greater levels of uncertainty associated with them. However, their meaning and consequences for patient-participants remains under-explored. This review synthesises the qualitative evidence of patients’ experiences of participating in phase 1 oncology trials, exploring their decisions to take part and the impacts of these trials on patient wellbeing.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search involving medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords was undertaken in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL, with supplementary searches also conducted. Studies were independently screened for inclusion by two researchers. Included studies were critically appraised and data extracted using standardised forms. Qualitative results were analysed using thematic synthesis.

Results

Three main themes were identified across 13 studies: decision-making and joining the trial; experiences of taking part in the trial and hope and coping. Patients primarily joined trials hoping for therapeutic benefits, sentiments which prevailed and shaped their experiences across their trial journey. Rather than indicate therapeutic misconception based on poor understanding, patient perspectives more commonly pointed to differences between hope and expectation and cultural narratives of staying positive, trying everything and trusting in experts.

Conclusions

These findings challenge information-based models of consent, favouring coping frameworks which account for the role of hope and meaning-making during serious illness. Personalised consideration of existential and quality-of-life matters before and during trials is recommended, including palliative and supportive care alternatives to active treatment.

Review Registration

The review was registered with PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD 42020163250).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06306-9.

The psychosocial responses of patients in cancer clinical trials: are they a barrier to participation?

Introduction:

This paper aims to discuss the psychosocial concomitants with involvement in oncology clinical trials, focusing on barriers that can impact upon participation. It will conclude with some recommendations for strategies to address potential psychosocial barriers with the aim of increasing trial participation rates.

Materials and methods:

A literature search was carried out using CINAHL, PubMed and EMCare databases with the following keywords for filtering: psychological distress, clinical trials, participation and oncology. The final selection of papers that met the inclusion criteria for this review was manually subjected to Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for relevance.

Results:

Thirteen papers were included in the review. The dominant theme within the literature is psychosocial obstacles to oncology clinical trial participation. Five key barriers were identified: anxiety and fear; ethnicity and social background; tensions between scientific objectives and personal motivations to participation; tensions between personal benefits versus altruism; carer perspectives.

Conclusions:

The key barriers discussed led to the identification of a set of strategies to help mediate conflicting tensions and motivations of trial enrolment with a view to increasing participation rates. Further prospective research garnering primary data investigating both the psychological and psychosocial factors influencing cancer clinical trial participation for patients needs to be undertaken.

Family caregivers support their patient's decision to participate in a phase 1 clinical trial: Weighing the pros and cons, bearing the costs

OBJECTIVES

When patients with advanced cancer pursue phase 1 clinical trials, family caregivers are impacted as they adopt new roles and responsibilities in time-pressured, uncertain circumstances. This study explored the nature of the caregivers' participation in patients' decision to pursue phase 1 clinical trials and the early impact of the decision on the caregiver.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 family caregivers of advanced cancer patients who had agreed to participate in phase 1 clinical trials. They were coded for information about the caregiver's relationship with the patient, typical style of decision-making together, understanding of the patient's prognosis and trial, contributions to decision-making and the initial impacts of the trial on the caregiver. Codes illuminating the research questions were grouped into categories and themes, compared across transcripts and examined against the literature.

RESULTS

Caregivers unequivocally supported the patients' decision to pursue the phase 1 trial as they hoped that the patient would derive medical benefit from the trial. They withheld their opinions and fears about the trial from the patients to support patient autonomy during the decision-making process. The patient's decision to participate increased the caregivers' burdens and deprived them of time spent on pleasurable activities at end of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Respecting the patients' personal autonomy, caregivers supported the trial, despite the complex caregiving required. As the success of phase 1 trials relies on caregiver involvement, it is imperative that healthcare professionals be sensitized to the support needs of these caregivers.

Motivation to Consent and Adhere to the FORT Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of this qualitative study was to identify the motivational factors that influence cancer survivors to participate and adhere to the fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) FORT randomized controlled trial (RCT). Fifteen women diagnosed with breast and gynecological cancer who took part in the FORT RCT were interviewed about their experience to consent and adhere to the trial. The transcribed interviews were content analyzed within a relational autonomy framework. The analysis revealed that the participants’ motivation to consent and adhere to the FORT RCT was structured around thirteen subthemes grouped into four overarching themes: (1) Personal Influential Factors; (2) Societal Motivations; (3) Structural Influences; and (4) Gains in Emotional Support. The unique structures of the trial such as the group format, the friendships formed with other participants in their group and with the group leaders, and the right timing of the trial within their cancer survivorship trajectory all contributed to their motivation to consent and adhere to the FORT RCT. While their initial motivation to participate was mostly altruistic, it was their personal gains obtained over the course of the trial that contributed to their adherence. Potential gains in emotional and social support from psycho-oncology trials should be capitalized when approaching future participants as a mean to improve on motivations to consent and adhere.

Factors Associated With Participation in Clinical Trials Among Patients With Lupus

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Participation rates for clinical trials, including lupus trials, in the United States are low, but are even lower for underrepresented minorities. The impact of underrepresentation in trials can be far-reaching and is problematic because female subjects of color with lupus experience greater morbidity and mortality. As such, the overarching goal of this study was to characterize the factors that influence participation in lupus clinical trials.

METHODS

The Lupus and Allied Diseases Association, the Lupus Foundation of America, and the Lupus Research Alliance collected data for their externally led Patient-Focused Drug Development Initiative-for the purpose of understanding and improving the rates of participation in lupus-related clinical trials. Participants completed a 46-question survey (in English or Spanish) electronically or on paper, which was distributed online or at lupus events. Logistic regression was used to test whether demographic and disease characteristics were associated with participation in past lupus trials.

RESULTS

Data were available for 2220 respondents. Black respondents with lupus were more likely, than their White and Hispanic counterparts, to have participated in past clinical trials (p < 0.05). Although not statistically significant, Hispanic respondents were also more likely to have participated than their White counterparts (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.11). Both demographic (ie, race/ethnicity) and medical (ie, disease severity defined as more organ involvement) factors seem to be important determinants of participation in clinical trials (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Combining the results from this study and prior research provides insight into recruitment strategies to increase participation rates of historically underrepresented minorities.

Patients' experiences of the decision-making process for clinical trial participation

Clinical decision‐making about participating in a clinical trial is a complex process influenced by overwhelming information about prognosis, disease, and treatment options. The study aimed to explore patients' experiences of the decision‐making process when patients are presented with the opportunity to participate in a cancer clinical trial and to shed light on how patients experience the health communication, the nurse's role, and the physician's role. A qualitative study design was applied. Nine patients with advanced cancer were interviewed after being informed about their treatment options. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The results showed that patients made treatment decisions mainly guided by their emotions and trust in the physician. Furthermore, the physicians had a great impact on the decisions, and the nurse's role was associated with conversations about how to manage life. The study highlights the importance of talking about prognosis and addressing the patient's existential issues, particularly in this context of advanced cancer. The study elucidates a need for healthcare professionals to engage in health communication about life when it is coming to an end.

The use and meaning of the parachute metaphor in biomedicine: a citation analysis of a systematic review and a randomized trial of the parachute for freefall

Background: Numerous authors have used the 'parachute' analogy to comment on the importance of and need for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) in the hierarchy of medical evidence. Methods: The authors completed a retrospective literature analysis examining publications citing the 2003 parachute paper by Smith and Pell and a 2018 RCT of a parachute by Yeh et al. For all of the articles that directly analogized a medical intervention to a parachute, the authors identified the desired outcome of the practice and searched PubMed for relevant RCTs. Results: Authors citing the parachute analogy are often critical of RCTs and often draw comparisons to interventions that are not parachutes.

Patients' Perspectives on Transforming Clinical Trial Participation: Large Online Vignette-based Survey

Background

Patients’ participation is crucial to the success of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, recruiting and retaining patients in trials remain a challenge.

Objective

This study aims to describe patients’ preferences for the organization of RCTs (visits on- site or remotely) and evaluate the potential impact of fulfilling preferences on their willingness to participate in a clinical trial.

Methods

This was a vignette-based survey. Vignettes were case scenarios of real clinical trials assessing pharmacological treatments. These RCTs evaluated 6 prevalent chronic diseases (ie, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, asthma, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and endometriosis). Each vignette described (1) the RCT and characteristics of the treatment tested (ie, doses, administration routes) and (2) the trial procedures and different options (on-site or remotely) for how the trial was organized for informed consent, follow-up visits, and communication of results when the trial was completed. We recruited 628 participants from ComPaRe (www.compare.aphp.fr), a French e-cohort of patients with chronic diseases. The outcomes were the participants’ preferences for the way the trial was organized (on-site or remotely) and their willingness to participate in the trial.

Results

Of the 628 participants who answered the vignettes, 491 (78.2%) were female (median age 55 years), with different chronic diseases ranging from endometriosis in 59 of 491 (12%) patients to asthma in 133 of 628 (21.2%) patients. In addition, 38 (6.1%) participants wanted to provide informed consent and all trial visits on-site, 176 (28%) wished to participate in the trial entirely remotely, and 414 (65.9%) wanted to combine remote-based and hospital-based visits. Considering the trial as a whole, when the trial was organized in a way that the patients preferred, the median (Q1-Q3) likelihood of participation in the trial was 90% (80-100) versus 60% (30-80) if the trial followed the patients’ nonpreferred model. Furthermore, 256 (40.8%) patients responded to open-ended questions expressing their experience with trial participation and visits to the hospital and providing suggestions for improvement. The patients emphasized the need to personalize the way a trial is organized according to each patient’s needs and conditions.

Conclusions

There was a significant diversity in the participants’ preferences. Most participants preferred hybrid organization involving both on-site and remote visits. Participants were more likely to participate in a trial organized according to their preferences.

Experiences of Participation in a Multimodal Preventive Trial MIND-ADMINI Among Persons with Prodromal Alzheimer's Disease: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is one of the world's leading public health challenges. One-third of AD cases are attributable to modifiable vascular and lifestyle-related risk factors. The Multimodal Preventive Trial for Alzheimer's Disease, MIND-ADMINI a 6-month multinational parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT), targeted persons with prodromal AD and built on the positive outcomes from the Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER) trial. The intervention consisted of four main components of (i) physical exercise training program, (ii) nutrition guidance, (iii) cognitive training, and (iv) social stimulation, as well as (iv) monitoring of metabolic/vascular risk factors.

AIM

The study aimed to explore and describe the experiences of participation in MIND-ADMINI among persons with prodromal AD.

METHODS

This qualitative study was part of the larger MIND-ADMINI project. Eight participants were interviewed twice, before and after the intervention. The data was analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The results are presented as categories of (i) knowledge of AD and prevention, (ii) motives for study participation, (iii) experiences of the received information about the study, (iv) taking the decision to participate, (v) expectations on study participation, (vi) experiences of study participation and (vii) internal and external factors influencing study participation.

CONCLUSION

The MIND-ADMINI was well-tolerated by the participants. At the beginning of the study, the number of tasks and visits was perceived as burdensome but was later well-tolerated. The participant' knowledge about AD and prevention increased during the trial. Their motives for participating in MIND-ADMINI were described as both altruistic and self-beneficial. Health benefits from the study components, access to specialized medical care were identified as benefits. Managing the intensive flow of information was described a major challenge. The participants' needs for personalized support during the trial stress the importance of applying a person-centered approach providing the preventive trials.

Personalized and long-term electronic informed consent in clinical research: stakeholder views

Background

The landscape of clinical research has evolved over the past decade. With technological advances, the practice of using electronic informed consent (eIC) has emerged. However, a number of challenges hinder the successful and widespread deployment of eIC in clinical research. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the views of various stakeholders on the potential advantages and challenges of eIC.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 39 participants from 5 stakeholder groups from across 11 European countries. The stakeholder groups included physicians, patient organization representatives, regulator representatives, ethics committee members, and pharmaceutical industry representatives, and all were involved in clinical research. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method.

Results

Interviewees identified that a powerful feature of eIC is its personalized approach as it may increase participant empowerment. However, they identified several ethical and practical challenges, such as ensuring research participants are not overloaded with information and offering the same options to research participants who would prefer a paper-based informed consent rather than eIC. According to the interviewees, eIC has the potential to establish efficient long-term interactions between the research participants and the research team in order to keep the participants informed during and after the study. Interviewees emphasized that a personal interaction with the research team is of utmost importance and this cannot be replaced by an electronic platform. In addition, interviewees across the stakeholder groups supported the idea of having a harmonized eIC approach across the European Member States.

Conclusions

Interviewees reported a range of design and implementation challenges which needs to be overcome to foster innovation in informing research participants and obtaining their consent electronically. It was considered important that the implementation of eIC runs alongside the face-to-face contact between research participants and the research team. Moreover, interviewees expect that eIC could offer the opportunity to enable a personalized approach and to strengthen continuous communication over time. If successfully implemented, eIC may facilitate the engagement of research participants in clinical research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00675-7.

Facilitators, Challenges, and Messaging Strategies for Hispanic/Latino Populations Participating in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Clinical Research: A Literature Review

Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD) disproportionally affect Hispanic and Latino populations, yet Hispanics/Latinos are substantially underrepresented in AD/ADRD clinical research. Diverse inclusion in trials is an ethical and scientific imperative, as underrepresentation reduces the ability to generalize study findings and treatments across populations most affected by a disease. This paper presents findings from a narrative literature review (N = 210) of the current landscape of Hispanic/Latino participation in clinical research, including the challenges, facilitators, and communication channels to conduct culturally appropriate outreach efforts to increase awareness and participation of Hispanics/Latinos in AD/ADRD clinical research studies. Many challenges identified were systemic in nature: lack of culturally relevant resources; staffing that does not represent participants' cultures/language; eligibility criteria that disproportionately excludes Hispanics/Latinos; and too few studies available in Hispanic/Latino communities. The paper also details facilitators and messaging strategies to improve engagement and interest among Hispanics/Latinos in AD/ADRD research, starting with approaches that recognize and address the heterogeneity of the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, and then, tailor outreach activities and programs to address their diverse needs and circumstances. The needs identified in this article represent longstanding failures to improve engagement and interest among Hispanics/Latinos in AD/ADRD research; we discuss how the field can move forward learning from the experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Including older patients in cancer trials: A qualitative study of collaboration between geriatricians and oncologists

BACKGROUND

The under-representation of older patients in cancer trials remains an important obstacle to the generation of data on efficacy and safety in this growing patient population. In France, geriatric oncology coordination units (UCOGs) have been created to help oncologists and geriatricians work together on research, best practice, and continuing medical education. Taking these units as a case study, this paper sheds light on the collaboration between geriatricians and oncologists in the inclusion process of older patients in cancer trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Empirical data were gathered in a series of sociological interviews with all 16 oncologists, geriatricians and unit coordinators in the five UCOGs in the greater Paris region of France.

RESULTS

The case of French geriatric oncology coordination units shows the gap between professional research cultures in oncology and geriatrics that may account for the low observed inclusion rates. It is easier to include patients in randomized clinical trials than in observational studies. UCOGs have the potential to improve research in geriatric oncology by catalyzing the development and implementation of effective collaboration tools (such as frailty assessments). The units also have the potential to promote Phase IV trials and observational research that are suitable for older patients with cancer.

DISCUSSION

Bridging the cultural gap between oncologists (the dominant force in setting the cancer research agenda) and geriatricians (a source of specific knowledge and know-how) is essential for producing relevant trial protocols that match the specific yet diverse features of older patient populations.

Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent

BACKGROUND

Clinical cancer research trials may offer little or no direct clinical benefit to participants where a cure is no longer possible. As such, the decision-making and consent process for patient participation is often challenging.

AIM

To gain understanding of how patients make decisions regarding clinical trial participation, from the perspective of both the patient and healthcare professionals involved.

METHODS

In-depth, face to face interviews using a grounded theory approach. This study was conducted in a regional Cancer Centre in the United Kingdom. Of the 36 interviews, 16 were conducted with patients with cancer that had non-curative intent and 18 with healthcare professionals involved in the consent process.

RESULTS

'Nothing to lose' was identified as the core category that underpinned all other data within the study. This highlighted the desperation articulated by participants, who asserted trial participation was the 'only hope in the room'. The decision regarding participation was taken within a 'trusting relationship' that was important to both patients and professionals. Both were united in their 'fight against cancer'. These two categories are critical in understanding the decision-making/consent process and are supported by other themes presented in the theoretical model.

CONCLUSION

This study presents an important insight into the complex and ethically contentious situation of consent in clinical trials that have non-curative intent. It confirms that patients with limited options trust their doctor and frequently hold unrealistic hopes for personal benefit. It highlights a need for further research to develop a more robust and context appropriate consent process.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Are cancer patients better off if they participate in clinical trials? A mixed methods study

Background

Research and cancer care are closely intertwined; however, it is not clear whether physicians and nurses believe that clinical trials offer the best treatment for patients and, if so, whether this belief is justified. The aim of this study was therefore: (i) to explore how physicians and nurses perceive the benefits of clinical trial participation compared with standard care and (ii) whether it is justified to claim that clinical trial participation improves outcomes for cancer patients.

Methods

A mixed methods approach was used employing semi-structured interviews with 57 physicians and nurses in oncology and haematology and a literature review of the evidence for trial superiority, i.e. the idea that receiving treatment in a clinical trial leads to a better outcome compared with standard care. Inductive thematic analysis was used to examine the interview data. A literature review comprising nine articles was conducted according to a conceptual framework developed by Peppercorn et al. and evaluated recent evidence on trial superiority.

Results

Our findings show that many physicians and nurses make claims supporting trial superiority, however very little evidence is available in the literature comparing outcomes for trial participants and non-participants that supports their assertions.

Conclusions

Despite the recent rapid development and use of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, we find no support for trial participation to provide better outcomes for cancer patients than standard care. Hence, our present results are in line with previous results from Peppercorn et al. A weaker version of the superiority claim is that even if a trial does not bring about a direct positive effect, it brings about indirect positive effects. However, as the value of such indirect effects is dependent on the individual’s specific circumstances and preferences, their existence cannot establish the general claim that treatment in trials is superior. Belief in trial superiority is therefore unfounded. Hence, if such beliefs are communicated to patients in a trial recruitment context, it would provide misleading information. Instead emphasis should be on patients volunteering to give an altruistic contribution to the furthering of knowledge and to the potential benefit of future patients.

Motivations and Decision-Making of Adult Sickle Cell Patients in High-Risk Clinical Research

Potentially curative but high-risk trials of gene therapy or stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) for sickle cell disease (SCD) pose new opportunities for adults with SCD, many of whom experience significant disease burden and complications with few treatment options, as well as stigma and disparities in care. We explored motivations and decision-making processes of enrollees and decliners of such trials. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 20 enrollees and 6 decliners. Interviews explored participants' SCD experiences, motivations, and decision-making about trial participation, understanding of research-related information, and retrospective reflections. Interviews were analyzed with content analysis. Most identified the purpose of research, risks, and uncertainties of participation. Both enrollees and decliners described deliberative weighing of study risks and potential benefits (especially the prospect of a cure), with heavy factoring of their SCD status, experiences, and desire for a better life. Despite the influence of spirituality/religion and support of family and friends, all described the decision about participation as their own. In some patients, the primary outcome status defined by the trial did not match the patients' perceived outcomes. Patients with negative experiences expressed a desire for greater emphasis on risks and possible outcomes during informed consent. This cohort of adults with SCD were thoughtfully deliberative in their decisions about gene therapy or PBSCT trials. Future participants' decision-making may be enhanced by emphasizing that "successful" scientific outcomes can still involve complications or symptoms and be facilitated by referrals to former research participants and anticipatory discussions.

Patient and Provider Perspectives Regarding Enrollment in Head and Neck Cancer Research

OBJECTIVE

The advent of precision oncology complicates how clinicians and participants understand how clinical care and research interface. Here we examine how key stakeholders perceive the utility of, and evaluate the decision to participate in, genomic sequencing head and neck cancer research. The goal of this study was to highlight unique considerations for our community as this type of research proliferates across the country.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective multimethod qualitative and quantitative embedded ethics protocol.

SETTING

Single-institution National Cancer Institute-designated academic cancer center.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Multimethod study using paired surveys and semistructured interviews among patients and providers involved in a prospective precision head and neck oncology sequencing protocol (116 survey patient-participants, response rate 82%) with 18 interviewees.

RESULTS

Participants were generally enthusiastic about enrollment in research, both to help future patients and as a way of giving back to the community. They described reliance on information from and trust in their cancer doctor regarding the decision to participate in research, but paradoxically there was discordance in how doctors and patients reported their respective influence in the decision-making process. Clinicians also stressed the importance in separating clinical and research-informed consent processes, although patients did not describe this tension.

CONCLUSION

As we enter an era of increasing personalized medicine and targeted therapies, the relationship between clinicians, scientists, and patients plays a larger role in how we individualize and contextualize cancer research. Our data are another step toward the ultimate goal of respecting and protecting patients as participants in head and neck translational oncology.

Motivations and Decision Making Processes of Men With X-linked Retinoschisis Considering Participation in an Ocular Gene Therapy Trial

PURPOSE

To describe the motivations, expectations, and other factors men with X-linked retinoschisis (XLRS) consider when making decisions to participate in an early phase ocular gene therapy clinical trial.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

METHODS

Men with XLRS who were considering participation in a phase I/IIa ocular gene therapy clinical trial at the National Eye Institute were eligible for this study. Trial participants (n = 9) were interviewed prior to receiving the gene transfer and then at 3 and 12 months later. Trial participation decliners (n = 2) were interviewed at an initial visit and 12 months later. Those screened for the trial and found ineligible (n = 2) were interviewed at an initial visit only. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Interview participants described decision making factors as risk-benefit assessments, personal intuition, trust in the study team, and religious faith. Altruism and the potential for therapeutic benefit were the main motives for trial participation, whereas the uncertainty of risks and benefits was the reason 2 men declined participation. Although most participants hoped for direct benefit, no one expected to benefit. Almost all interview participants considered their decision straightforward and were satisfied with their decision when interviewed over time. Meaningful relationships with the study team and perceived secondary benefits to participation contributed to positive trial experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

Engaging prospective research participants in a discussion about their hopes, expectations, and personal factors provides a more complete understanding of patient decision making and may help support informed choices to participate in clinical trials for XLRS.

Patients' and physicians' disagreement on patients' understanding of clinical cancer trial information: a pairwise pilot study of mirroring subjective assessments compared with objective measurements

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is a prerequisite for patients included in clinical trials. Trial design, inclusion criteria and legal requirements are increasingly complex. This complexity challenges design and delivery of written and oral trial information to ensure understandable information. To evaluate the level of concordance between patients' and informing physicians' assessments regarding patient understanding of trial information, we carried out a study based on paired questionnaire data from patients and their physicians. These assessments of patient understanding were further correlated with patients' factual knowledge of the information provided.

METHODS

This pilot study included patients and physicians immediately after the patients had received information on one of 23 ongoing phase III randomised cancer trials at two Swedish sites. In total, 46 patients and 17 physicians contributed data based on two new questionnaires with seven mirroring questions, where concordance was analysed with McNemar's test. These assessments of patients' self-estimated understanding were further correlated with the Patient Understanding of Research (Q-PUR) questionnaire that assesses factual knowledge of the information provided.

RESULTS

For each question, 47-61% of the patient-physician pairs were in concordance regarding their assessments of patients' 'fully understanding' or 'not fully understanding' various aspects of the trial information. For the discordant pairs, the physicians rated patient understanding lower than the patients themselves, for all seven questions. This difference was significant for five of the questions (P ≤ 0.017). The median Q-PUR knowledge score was 11 out of 12, but this score did not significantly correlate with the assessments, either from patients or from physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated a trend for physicians to rate the level of understanding of trial information among potential trial patients lower than the patients themselves. Application of Q-PUR revealed high knowledge scores, but without correlation to the assessments. These findings need validation in an independent setting, with an improved instrument with mirroring questions, and a better-matched measurement of patients' factual knowledge. These results suggest that physicians need to improve their ability to assess patient understanding of clinical trial information, in order to be able to tailor the patients' information individually.