Clinical Trials: Understanding Patient Perspectives and Beliefs About Treatment

Patient Perspectives on Evolving Diverticulitis Treatment: An Assessment of Patient Willingness to Enroll in a Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

The objective of the study was to assess patients' attitudes regarding participation in a randomized trial of antibiotics versus placebo for acute diverticulitis.

Background

Despite evidence that antibiotics may not be necessary to treat acute uncomplicated diverticulitis, they remain the mainstay of treatment in the United States. A randomized trial in the United States evaluating antibiotic effectiveness could accelerate the implementation of antibiotic-free treatment, but providers maintain concerns that patients may be unwilling to participate.

Methods

This mixed-methods study conducted semi-structured interviews of patients presenting to a quaternary care emergency department with acute diverticulitis and a web-based survey of a larger cohort. The interviews assessed patients' experiences with diverticulitis and perceptions of participation in a trial comparing antibiotics versus placebo. The survey quantified patients' willingness to participate in such a study and the relative importance of factors influencing the process.

Results

Thirteen patients completed an interview. Reasons to participate included a desire to help others or contribute to scientific knowledge. Doubts about the efficacy of observation as a treatment method were the main barrier to participation. In a survey of 218 subjects, 62% of respondents reported willingness to participate in a randomized clinical trial. "What my doctor thinks," followed by "What I have experienced in the past" were the most important decision-making factors.

Conclusion

Patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis maintain complex and varying perceptions of antibiotic use. Most surveyed patients would be willing to participate in a trial of antibiotics versus placebo. Our findings support the trial's feasibility and may facilitate an informed approach to recruitment and consent.

Seeking Precision Healthcare in Rural Patients With Cancer: Learning Self-advocacy

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine initiatives are offering superior treatments for cancer, and equitable distribution of these care measures is desired. Gaining insight into the meanings and shared practices of individuals navigating a cancer diagnosis and treatment in a rural setting will help efforts to mitigate inequities in this domain.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) interpret individuals' common meanings of a cancer diagnosis including what contributes to that meaning; (2) explicate the shared practices of individuals with cancer regarding accessing oncology care, including provider visits, testing, and treatments; and (3) interpret common understanding of testing and treatment options in individuals with cancer.

METHODS

Using hermeneutic phenomenology, interviews with individuals who have cancer who may benefit from precision medicine initiatives and who live in a rural area were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by the research team until common meanings arose from the narratives.

RESULTS

Fifteen participants provided in-depth interviews. Three main themes and a constitutive pattern emerged: (1) "Slipping through the cracks," (2) Traveling this distance: "Gee, is there something closer?" and (3) Evoking some resilience: "Hope is a powerful word." The constitutive pattern was: "The necessity of practicing and developing advocacy."

CONCLUSIONS

Access to care in the rural setting is a complex concept and includes challenges with receiving care at a distance, travel to larger cities for adequate care, and coordination of care from multiple providers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Efforts toward providing advocacy in the healthcare setting, as well as developing ways to make access to specialized cancer care more readily available, are important steps toward mitigation of inequities in rural areas.

Palliative care integration for patients on phase I cancer clinical trials

Early integration of palliative care (PC) is recommended as standard of care for patients with advanced cancer. However, challenges remain for both medical oncologists and PC specialists in knowing how to best integrate PC within the dynamic landscape of cancer therapeutics and drug development. Over the last several years in oncology, the success of immunotherapy and molecularly targeted agents has led to a greater demand for novel agents and expansion of objectives of early phase clinical trials. This has in turn created more nuance when discussing prognosis and supporting patients with advanced disease and their caregivers. This review article presents the current literature to support the integration of PC within investigational oncology, as a mechanism to address the evolving needs of patients and caregivers, during and beyond participation on phase I cancer clinical trials.

Complex Patient Perspectives on Evolving Diverticulitis Treatment Patient Perspectives on Diverticulitis

Background

Despite evidence that antibiotics may not be necessary to treat acute uncomplicated diverticulitis, they remain the mainstay of treatment in the United States. A randomized controlled trial evaluating antibiotic effectiveness could accelerate implementation of an antibiotic-free treatment strategy, but patients may be unwilling to participate.

Objective

This study aims to assess patients' attitudes regarding participation in a randomized trial of antibiotics versus placebo for acute diverticulitis, including willingness to participate.

Design

This is a mixed-methods study with qualitative and descriptive methods.

Settings

Interviews were conducted in a quaternary care emergency department and surveys were administered virtually through a web-based portal.

Patients

Patients with either current or previous acute uncomplicated diverticulitis participated.

Interventions

Patients underwent semi-structured interviews or completed a web-based survey. Main Outcome measures: Rates of willingness to participate in a randomized controlled trial was measured. Salient factors related to healthcare decision-making were also identified and analyzed.

Results

Thirteen patients completed an interview. Reasons to participate included a desire to help others or contribute to scientific knowledge. Doubts about the efficacy of observation as a treatment method were the main barrier to participation. In a survey of 218 subjects, 62% of respondents reported willingness to participate in a randomized clinical trial. "What my doctor thinks," followed by "What I've experienced in the past" were the most important decision-making factors.

Limitations

There is possible selection bias inherent to using a study to evaluate willingness to participate in a study. Also, the population sampled was disproportionately White compared to the population affected by diverticulitis.

Conclusions

Patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis maintain complex and varying perceptions of the use of antibiotics. Most surveyed patients would be willing to participate in a trial of antibiotics versus placebo. Our findings support a trial's feasibility and facilitate an informed approach to recruitment and consent.

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.

Improving Palliative Care and Quality of Life in Pancreatic Cancer Patients

Background: Pancreatic cancer patients often present with complications, which can impact treatment tolerance. Thus, symptom management is a vital component of treatment in addition to traditional chemotherapeutics. Concurrent palliative care with an emphasis on aggressive symptom management may sustain both clinical and patient-centered outcomes during treatment. The purpose of this article is to explore the impact of a concurrent palliative care intervention in patients with pancreatic cancer treated on phase I clinical trials. Materials and Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded randomized trial of an advanced practice nurse driven palliative care intervention for solid tumor patients treated on phase I clinical trials. Only pancreatic cancer patients were included in the analysis. Patients received two educational sessions around the quality of life (QOL) domains and completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE), and the psychological distress thermometer at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks. Mixed model with repeated measures analysis was used to explore outcomes by study arm. Results: Of the 479 patients accrued to the study, 42 were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (26 intervention, 16 usual care). A trend toward improvement in the physical, social, emotional, and functional FACT-G QOL subscales and psychological distress (baseline to 12 weeks) were observed for the intervention arm. Patients reported moderate severity in psychological and physical stress. Conclusions: In this secondary analysis, a nurse-led palliative care intervention may improve the QOL and psychological distress of pancreatic cancer patients. A phase III trial focused on patients with pancreatic cancer is needed to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.

Translation and validation of the greek version of a questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials

Background

The increasing number of clinical research opportunities requires increasing numbers of participants in clinical trials. However, it may become increasingly problematic, as protocols have become increasingly complex. Better understanding of patients’ attitudes towards their potential participation in clinical trials is essential for developing effective clinical trial recruitment strategies. In Greece, limited research has been conducted on this topic so far. This study aims to contribute to filling this gap.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted. Purposive sampling was used to select participants. The Greek version of a recently developed questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials, a 27-item scale distributed into four factors, was tested. In addition, participants were asked to provide information regarding their socio-demographics. A demographic comparison was conducted.

Results

The four-factor solution derived in our study consisted of the same 27 items and it was different from the six-factor solution that Arnetz et al. proposed. The factors risks and benefits, that consisted of 5 and 3 items respectively in the six-factor solution, were merged into one factor that consisted of 10 items in the four-factor solution. The four factors produced were Risks and benefits (ten items, α = 0,867), Patient’s expectations (six items, α = 0.864), Patient’s participation (five items, α = 0.827), and Cost and convenience (five items, α = 0,770). We found that demographic factors did not impact patients’ opinions about clinical trials participation, except for gender. The participants reported as important for participating in clinical trial: receiving clear and adequate information (95,5 %) and being given the opportunity to ask questions (97,8 %), take part in discussions regarding their own treatment (94,6 %), and voice their concerns and opinions (91,1 %). As factors strongly associated with participants’ willingness to participate in a clinical trial were reported: concerns about the risks of being in a clinical trial (87,5 %), the possible side effects of clinical trials (86,3 %), the type of treatment given in a clinical trial (83,7 %), and whether participation would improve their quality of life (QoL) (81,5 %).

Conclusions

The preliminary validation of the Greek version of the questionnaire measuring patient perceptions and expectations of participating in clinical trials demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability and could be further tested in larger samples. The findings that emerged from this study are in line with previous literature.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07111-x.

Integrating Palliative Care for Patients on Clinical Trials: Opportunities for Oncology Nurses

The purpose of this article is to describe the lessons learned in the course of a 5-year research study on a palliative care intervention for persons on a Phase 1 clinical trial. Patients who are participating in Phase 1 trials and the families who care for them may be especially vulnerable and require special attention. The patients are generally experiencing the effects of advanced disease, and they also may soon experience unknown side effects, intense treatment regimens, and the emotional stress of an uncertain future as a result of clinical trial participation. Oncology nurses in all roles including clinical trials/research nurses, clinicians, educators, and advanced practice registered nurses play a critical role in addressing the quality-of-life concerns in this population. Palliative care can provide better symptom control and information on treatment options and facilitate a better understanding of patient/family goals. Attending to these factors can ultimately mean improved survival for the advanced cancer patient, and support for these patients can assist in advancing the field of oncology as these investigational therapies hold the promise for enhancing survival.