On clinical trial participation

A randomised controlled trial evaluating the utility of a patient Decision Aid to improve clinical trial (RAVES 08.03) related decision-making

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the 'gold-standard' for evaluating medical treatments. However, patients and clinicians report difficulties with informed consent and recruitment. We evaluated the utility of a Decision Aid (DA) in reducing RCT-related decisional conflict, and improving RCT knowledge and recruitment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Potential participants for a radiotherapy RCT were invited to participate in the current study. Participants were randomised to receive the RCT's participant information sheet with or without a DA. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, one and six months. The primary outcome measure was decisional conflict. Secondary outcome measures included knowledge regarding and recruitment to the RCT.

RESULTS

129 men were randomised to the DA (63) and control (66) arms. Decisional conflict was significantly lower over 6-months (p=0.048) in the DA arm. Knowledge regarding the RCT was significantly higher at 6months (p=0.033) in the DA arm. 20.6% of the DA arm (13 of 63) and 9% of the control arm (6 of 66) entered the RCT.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the utility of a DA in reducing decisional conflict and improving trial knowledge in men with cancer who are making decisions regarding RCT participation.

Do screening trial recruitment logs accurately reflect the eligibility criteria of a given clinical trial? Early lessons from the RAVES 0803 trial

AIMS

Maintaining clinical trial screening logs and reporting data from such logs are given importance due to the relevance of a trial's patient population to the generalisability of its findings. However, screening logs may not always reflect a clinical trial's true target population. The aim of the present study was to define and compare 'apparent recruitment' to a trial as captured in a clinical trial screening log with 'true recruitment', which considers all potentially eligible patients. The Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 0803 RAVES clinical trial was used to examine the above.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, surgical database was interrogated for the 12 month period to identify patients potentially eligible for the TROG 0803 RAVES trial. Information on whether patients were referred to a RAVES trial recruitment site and reasons for non-referral were obtained.

RESULTS

Of 92 men undergoing radical prostatectomy, 28 met the RAVES clinical trial eligibility criteria. Fifteen of the 28 eligible men were assessed at a RAVES trial site, with five being ultimately recruited to RAVES (33% 'apparent recruitment fraction' as captured by the site's trial screening log). The 'true recruitment fraction' was 5/28 (18%).

CONCLUSION

Screening logs at a recruiting trial site may underestimate the trial's target population and overestimate recruitment. Only a subpopulation of all eligible patients may be captured in trial screening logs and subsequently reported on. This may affect the generalisability of the trial's reported findings.

Hope for a cure and altruism are the main motives behind participation in phase 3 clinical cancer trials

It is necessary to carry out randomised clinical cancer trials (RCTs) in order to evaluate new, potentially useful treatments for future cancer patients. Participation in clinical trials plays an important role in determining whether a new treatment is the best therapy or not. Therefore, it is important to understand on what basis patients decide to participate in clinical trials and to investigate the implications of this understanding for optimising the information process related to study participation. The aims of this study were to (1) describe motives associated with participation in RCTs, (2) assess if patients comprehend the information related to trial enrolment, and (3) describe patient experiences of trial participation. Questionnaires were sent to 96 cancer patients participating in one of nine ongoing clinical phase 3 trials at the Department of Oncology, Uppsala University Hospital in Sweden. Eighty-eight patients completed the questionnaire (response rate 92%); 95% of these were patients in adjuvant therapy and 5% participated in clinical trials on palliative care. Two main reasons for participation were identified: personal hope for a cure and altruism. Patients show adequate understanding of the information provided to them in the consent process and participation entails high patient satisfaction.

Preliminary evaluation of factors associated with premature trial closure and feasibility of accrual benchmarks in phase III oncology trials

BACKGROUND

A major challenge for randomized phase III oncology trials is the frequent low rates of patient enrollment, resulting in high rates of premature closure due to insufficient accrual.

PURPOSE

We conducted a pilot study to determine the extent of trial closure due to poor accrual, feasibility of identifying trial factors associated with sufficient accrual, impact of redesign strategies on trial accrual, and accrual benchmarks designating high failure risk in the clinical trials cooperative group (CTCG) setting.

METHODS

A subset of phase III trials opened by five CTCGs between August 1991 and March 2004 was evaluated. Design elements, experimental agents, redesign strategies, and pretrial accrual assessment supporting accrual predictions were abstracted from CTCG documents. Percent actual/predicted accrual rate averaged per month was calculated. Trials were categorized as having sufficient or insufficient accrual based on reason for trial termination. Analyses included univariate and bivariate summaries to identify potential trial factors associated with accrual sufficiency.

RESULTS

Among 40 trials from one CTCG, 21 (52.5%) trials closed due to insufficient accrual. In 82 trials from five CTCGs, therapeutic trials accrued sufficiently more often than nontherapeutic trials (59% vs 27%, p = 0.05). Trials including pretrial accrual assessment more often achieved sufficient accrual than those without (67% vs 47%, p = 0.08). Fewer exclusion criteria, shorter consent forms, other CTCG participation, and trial design simplicity were not associated with achieving sufficient accrual. Trials accruing at a rate much lower than predicted (<35% actual/predicted accrual rate) were consistently closed due to insufficient accrual.

LIMITATIONS

This trial subset under-represents certain experimental modalities. Data sources do not allow accounting for all factors potentially related to accrual success.

CONCLUSION

Trial closure due to insufficient accrual is common. Certain trial design factors appear associated with attaining sufficient accrual. Defining accrual benchmarks for early trial termination or redesign is feasible, but better accrual prediction methods are critically needed. Future studies should focus on identifying trial factors that allow more accurate accrual predictions and strategies that can salvage open trials experiencing slow accrual.

Improving informed consent: pilot of a decision aid for women invited to participate in a breast cancer prevention trial (IBIS-II DCIS)

BACKGROUND

Patients and clinicians report difficulties with the process of informed consent to clinical trials and audiotape audits show that critical information is often omitted or poorly presented. Decision aids (DAs) may assist in improving consent.

AIMS

This study piloted a DA booklet for a high priority breast cancer prevention trial, IBIS-II DCIS, which compares the efficacy of an aromatase inhibitor (anastrozole) with tamoxifen in women who have had surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

METHOD

Thirty-one Australian women participating in the IBIS-I breast cancer prevention trial and who are currently in follow-up agreed to read the IBIS-II DCIS participant information sheet and the DCIS DA booklet, complete a set of standardized questionnaires, and provide feedback on the DA via a semi-structured phone interview.

RESULTS

Women found the DA helpful in deciding about trial participation, reporting that it aided their understanding over and above the approved IBIS-II DCIS participant information sheet and was not anxiety provoking. Women's understanding of the rationale and methods of clinical trials and the IBIS-II DCIS trial was very good; with more than 80% of items answered correctly. The only areas that were not understood well were the concepts of randomization and blinding.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the DA will be acceptable to and valued by potential participants in the IBIS-II DCIS study. The revised DA is currently being evaluated prospectively in a randomized controlled trial. If successful, such DAs could transform the consent process to large clinical trials and may also reduce dropout rates.

Attitudes toward participation in breast cancer randomized clinical trials in the African American community: a focus group study

Participation of African Americans in research trials is low. Understanding the perspectives of African American patients toward participation in clinical trials is essential to understanding the disparities in participation rates compared with whites. A qualitative study was conducted to discover attitudes of the African American community regarding willingness to participate in breast cancer screening and randomized clinical trials. Six focus groups consisting of 8 to 11 African American women (N = 58), aged 30 to 65, were recruited from local churches. Focus group sessions involved a 2-hour audio-taped discussion facilitated by 2 moderators. A breast cancer randomized clinical trial involving an experimental breast cancer treatment was discussed to identify the issues related to willingness to participate in such research studies. Six themes surrounding willingness to participate in randomized clinical trials were identified: (1) Significance of the research topic to the individual and/or community; (2) level of trust in the system; (3) understanding of the elements of the trial; (4) preference for "natural treatments" or "religious intervention" over medical care; (5) cost-benefit analysis of incentives and barriers; and (6) openness to risk versus a preference for proven treatments. The majority (80%) expressed willingness or open-mindedness to the idea of participating in the hypothetical trial. Lessons learned from this study support the selection of a culturally diverse research staff and can guide the development of research protocols, recruitment efforts, and clinical procedures that are culturally sensitive and relevant.

The Influence of Race on the Attitudes of Radiation Oncology Patients Towards Clinical Trial Enrollment

OBJECTIVES

Enrollment of adult cancer patients in clinical trials remains low, particularly in the minority population. Understanding patient attitudes towards clinical trials during the recruitment process may enhance accrual. Unfortunately, data describing patient attitudes towards clinical trials are limited, particularly in the radiation oncology clinic setting.

METHODS

A piloted questionnaire assessing basic demographics and attitudes toward clinical trials was offered in 2 radiation oncology clinics between April 2003 and October 2003. The questionnaire was completed by 166 patients. The mean age of the patients completing the questionnaire was 56 years (range, 15-84 years). Of the 166 patients included in the analysis, 108 (65%) were White. The most common cancer diagnoses included prostate (19%), head and neck (16%), and breast (14%).

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference between Whites and non-Whites regarding their interest in learning about clinical trials (84.3% versus 84.9%, P = 0.92); nor was there a significant difference in the rate of previous or current trial enrollment (21.3% versus 34.0%, P = 0.08). White patients were more likely to gather information about clinical trials from the Internet (30.6% versus 11.3%, P = 0.007), and they were more likely to use physicians as a source of this information (50.0% versus 34.0%, P = 0.05). Non-White patients were more likely to obtain information about clinical trials from other patients (24.5% versus 12.0%, P = 0.04). In addition, more non-White patients believed they had been treated on clinical trials without their knowledge (21.6% versus 9.3%, P = 0.032). Patients differed somewhat in their expectations of clinical trials. More non-Whites indicated that they would need a >50% chance of benefiting from a trial (64.4% versus 45.0%, P = 0.03) to enroll on that trial, though there were no statistical differences in outlook towards potential toxicities associated with treatment on a clinical trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Minority patients historically enroll in clinical trials at a significantly lower rate. Our study of radiation oncology patients documents significant differences in attitudes towards clinical trials between Whites and non-Whites. Understanding the differences in attitudes may allow physicians to overcome barriers that would otherwise hinder the enrollment of non-White patients into clinical trials.

The impact of the physician on the accrual to randomized clinical trials in patients with primary operable breast cancer

Randomized clinical trials (RCT) are the best way to define optimal treatment, but the accrual rates for hardly any trials have been reported. We analyzed retrospectively the participation of patients in eight phase III multicenter RTCs. Out of a total of 738 patients treated in a single institution for operable breast cancer over a 3-year period, 455 patients (62%) were eligible for at least one of the ongoing trials. Overall, 81% of the patients were informed and 47% of the eligible patients consented to participate. The accrual was 100% to a study with an aggressive combined modality treatment arm for patients with a poor prognosis. A low accrual rate was seen in two trials: 6% in the "elderly" trial comparing tamoxifen only with mastectomy and 10% to the "axilla" trial comparing surgery with radiotherapy to the axilla. The clinicians failed to inform most of these patients about the two trials. In the literature seven of the eight trials were reported; two of them (29%) failed to accrue enough patients.

Developing ethical strategies to assist oncologists in seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials

Randomised clinical trials have come to be regarded as the gold standard in treatment evaluation. However, many doctors see the discussion of a clinical trial as an intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship and find these discussions difficult to initiate. Detailed informed consent is now a requirement of patient participation in trials; however, it is known that patients commonly fail to understand and recall the information conveyed. These difficulties for doctors and patients raise questions about the ethical integrity of the informed consent process. In this study, we have developed a set of communication strategies underpinned by ethical, linguistic and psychological theory, designed to assist doctors in this difficult task. Initially, audiotape transcripts of 26 consultations in which 10 medical oncologists invited patients to participate in clinical trials were analysed by expert ethicists, linguists, oncologists and psychologists, using rigorous qualitative methodology. A subset of seven of these was subjected to detailed linguistic analysis. A strategies document was developed to address themes which emerged from these analyses. This document was presented to relevant expert stakeholders. Their feedback was incorporated into the final document. Four themes emerged from the analysis; (a) shared decision-making, (b) the sequence of moves in the consultation, (c) the type and clarity of the information provided and (d) disclosure of controversial information and coercion. Detailed strategies were developed to assist doctors to communicate in these areas. We have developed a set of ethical strategies which may assist health professionals in this difficult area. A training package based on these strategies is currently being evaluated in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Ethical communication in clinical trials. Issues faced by data managers in obtaining informed consent

BACKGROUND

Informed consent has been proposed as the optimal method for ensuring the ethical entry of patients into clinical trials. However, it is known that problems with informed consent exist from the perspective of both patients and physicians. This has led to the suggestion that a third party, such as a research nurse or data manager, should be responsible for obtaining informed consent. The objective of this study was to explore the views of data managers concerning the nature, challenges, and rewards of their role and the similarities and differences between their role and that of physicians in obtaining informed consent.

METHODS

Four focus groups in three large teaching hospitals were conducted. Twenty-one data managers who were involved in cancer or pain clinical trials participated. The focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed, and subjected to content analysis to identify themes.

RESULTS

Data managers identified three primary roles complementary to that of physicians: information provision, quality assurance of the informed consent process, and ongoing support during the trial. Despite expressed concern that medical and drug company interests may lead to subtle coercion of the patient, participants did not support the notion that they may be solely responsible for the consent process. Participants described a range of ethical dilemmas they confronted, including patients asking them for medical details they could not provide and situations in which they felt that informed consent was compromised in some way, for example, dealing with situations in which the patient appeared to be entering the trial for the wrong reasons due to misunderstanding, need, or passivity. Effective functioning of the multidisciplinary team assisted data managers in performing their role. A range of training needs were identified, particularly communication skills training and trial start-up briefing.

CONCLUSIONS

The issues raised by these data managers have important implications for the successful conduct of clinical trials, particularly the need for an integrated, multidisciplinary approach at all levels of the informed-consent process.

Qualitative differences among cancer clinical trial explanations

This paper examines how medical oncologists present to breast cancer patients the option of participating in experimental treatment trials. The investigation takes a case study approach, comparing two contrasting presentations of the clinical trial option. One presentation constructs the experimental trial as a locally organized, joint physician-patient effort to determine "best" treatments, and minimizes uncertainty by oversimplification of the randomization process; the second presentation situates the clinical trial within the larger national research effort, underscores the uncertainty created by randomization, and casts non-enrollment as a reasonable option. These observations provide initial evidence that physician presentation of the clinical trial varies substantially and provides the first detailed look at actual discourse practices used in the United States to recruit patients to experimental protocols.

Factors that influence the recruitment of patients to Phase III studies in oncology: the perspective of the clinical research associate

BACKGROUND

The multiple determinants of a patient's decision to enter into a clinical trial have been explored largely from the perspectives of patients and their physicians. Little research has involved clinical research associates (CRAs) formally, despite their central role in the process of recruitment. The current study was initiated to explore the factors that influence the decision of patients with cancer regarding clinical trial entry, specifically from the perspective of the CRA.

METHODS

Two focus groups of CRAs from the Hamilton Regional Cancer Center were organized. A skilled facilitator guided both groups through exploratory and subsequent confirmatory phases of discussions, which were audiotaped for review and coding using a process of consensus employing intercoder triangulation.

RESULTS

The two groups identified a number of factors that they believed influenced the recruitment process. Numerous physician and patient factors were reaffirmed, such as the impression of the scientific merit of a study or the sense of personal benefit, respectively. More uniquely, CRAs identified information transfer within the informed consent process as a major aspect of their specialized role. It was believed that full disclosure of information, in terms of both the content and the techniques and styles of delivery, was an important predictor of recruitment success. The groups quickly reached consensus on which factors they believed were the most important overall with respect to influencing study recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

CRAs appear to have a unique role in the process of recruiting patients to active clinical trials. They believe that they have an important influence on recruitment success. Further research to validate this impression is required, because, ultimately, a greater understanding of the relative roles of physician and patient factors and, potentially, CRA factors will be important in the development of ethical and supportive strategies to optimize the recruitment of patients with cancer into randomized clinical trials.

Effects of patient selection on the applicability of results from a randomised clinical trial (EORTC 10853) investigating breast-conserving therapy for DCIS

Selection of patients for randomised clinical trials may have a large impact on the applicability of the study results to the general population presenting the same disorder. However, clinical characteristics and outcome data on non-entered patients are usually not available. The effects of patient selection for the EORTC 10853 trial investigating the role of radiotherapy in breast conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ have been studied, in an analysis of all patients treated for ductal carcinoma in situ in five participating institutes. The reasons for not entering patients were evaluated and treatment results of the randomised patients were compared to those not entered. A total of 910 patients were treated for ductal carcinoma in situ. Of these, 477 (52%) were ineligible, with the size of the lesion being the main reason for ineligibility (30% of all ductal carcinoma in situ). Of the 433 eligible patients, 278 (64%) were randomised into the trial. The main reasons for non-entry of eligible patients were either physicians' preference for one of the treatment arms (26%) or patients' refusal (9%). These percentages showed significant variation among the institutes. At 4 years follow-up, those patients not entered in the trial and treated with local excision and radiotherapy, had higher local recurrence rates than the patients randomised in the trial and treated with the same approach, (17 vs 2%, P=0.03). The patients treated with local excision alone had equal local recurrence rates (11% in both groups). Selection of patients may explain the differences in outcome of the randomised patients, and those not-entered. Thus, the results of this trial may not be applicable to all patients with ductal carcinoma in situ.

Attitudes towards clinical research amongst participants and nonparticipants

OBJECTIVES

To investigate attitudes to clinical research amongst cancer trial participants and nonparticipants, and to compare results with those from previous studies amongst participants in noncancer trials.

DESIGN

Trial participating respondents were given three questionnaires during the clinical trials. Respondents amongst patients declining randomization answered a single questionnaire.

SETTING

Participants and nonparticipants in randomized clinical cancer trials.

SUBJECTS

Forty-one participants and 47 nonparticipants in cancer trials.

RESULTS

Altruistic motives of physicians to conduct medical research were highly rated. Attitudes towards clinical research were positive in all groups, with nonparticipant respondents being the least positive. Eight to nine tenths found scientific testing necessary before general health service implementation. Trial participants were, as compared with nonparticipating respondents, more positive towards both participation of self and others. Both personal and altruistic motives for participation were highly rated. Primary reasons for nonparticipation were fear of 'the unknown' and/or unease with randomization. Only a minority felt a moral problem created by declining trial participation. Respondents amongst noncancer participants were more satisfied with the information given than both cancer participants and cancer nonparticipants. Negative experiences in cancer participants generally dealt with frustration related to seeing too many physicians at check-up appointments.

CONCLUSION

Attitudes towards clinical research are generally positive even in cancer nonparticipants. Both personal and altruistic motives for participation were highly rated. A fear of 'the unknown' and resentments towards randomization were primary reasons to renounce participation. Seeing too many physicians at check-up appointments seems to be an important factor for negative experiences in cancer trial participants.

Lung cancer--a philosophical, ethical, and personal perspective

Lung cancer is a formidable worldwide health problem causing more deaths than breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer combined. Eighty percent are non-small cell type (NSCLC) and less than one in five patients can have a curative resection. Decisionmaking in treating cancer, and lung cancer specifically, requires an understanding of the basic ethical principles as well as a prioritization of values beyond medical knowledge alone. Choosing a treatment plan can be difficult because of the multiple confronting dilemmas occurring simultaneously. Economic analysis also is required of every major treatment strategy proposed. Active patient involvement is helpful in making these important and difficult choices at the same time clinicians must be mindful of their roles as healers, educators, and innovators of knowledge in a disease that has a five year mortality rate of nearly 90%. Finally, because end of life care issues are so common with this illness, clinicians must be aware of their importance in making dying easier for so many individuals.

Randomized clinical trials in oncology: understanding and attitudes predict willingness to participate

PURPOSE

To explore the association at different time points in the trajectory of breast cancer care, between anxiety, knowledge, and attitudes, on women's willingness to participate in randomized clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was undertaken among women attending a breast clinic for screening mammography or diagnostic assessment plus women with newly diagnosed breast cancer to assess attitudes toward and willingness to participate in randomized clinical trials of breast cancer treatment.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-five women completed questionnaires assessing knowledge of and attitudes toward randomized clinical trials. The mean age of respondents was 48.9 years (SD, 11.3 years). Thirty-three percent of women would consider participating in a clinical trial if they had breast cancer. Women with breast cancer (31%) were significantly more likely to decline to participate than women attending for screening mammography (15%) or diagnostic assessment (15%, P =.0002). Women who might consider participating in a randomized clinical trial were more knowledgeable about randomized trials (mean difference, 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2 to 1.2; P =.003). In a multivariate analysis, women who would consider participating in a randomized trial were younger (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.99), more likely to want an active role in decision-making (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 7.6), and reported a greater impact from the positive aspects of clinical trials (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.8) and less impact from the negative aspects of clinical trials (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.2).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that women who have a better understanding of issues about clinical trials have more favorable attitudes toward randomized trials and are more willing to consider participation in a clinical trial.

Improving patient recruitment to multicentre clinical trials: the case for employing a data manager in a district general hospital-based oncology centre

One of the most frequently cited reasons for poor recruitment to multicentre randomized clinical trials is the additional workload placed on clinical staff. We report the effect on patient recruitment of employing a data manager to support clinical staff in an English district general hospital (DGH). In addition, we explore the effect data managers have on the quality of data collected, proxied by the number of queries arising with the trial organizers. We estimate that the cost of employing a data manager on a full-time basis is 502 per patient recruited but may amount to 326 if the appointment is part-time. Data quality is high when full responsibility lies with a data manager but falls when responsibility is shared. Whether the costs of employing a data manager to recruit patients from a DGH are worth incurring depends on the value placed on the speed at which multicentre trials can be completed, how important it is to broaden the research base beyond the traditional setting of teaching hospitals, and the amount of evaluative data required.

Ethical aspects of clinical trials: the attitudes of participants in two non-cancer trials

OBJECTIVES

To investigate attitudes to clinical trials in non-cancer trial participants.

DESIGN

Questionnaires at entry, during, and after participation in a clinical study.

SETTING

Participants in: (i) ROC: a clinical study comparing systemic interferon-alpha-2A treatment vs. prednisolone enemas in ulcerative colitis; and (ii) MRCRUC: a clinical study investigating low-field magnetic resonance imaging as a new modality for the evaluation of patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

SUBJECTS

Thirty-two patients in ROC and 47 patients in MRCRUC.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Attitudes towards different aspects of clinical research.

RESULTS

The majority found scientific testing of clinical methods necessary, having positive attitudes towards both participation by themselves and others. The creation of a personal moral problem by denying participation was rejected by a large majority, and still both personal and altruistic motives for participation were highly rated. An important motive for accepting inclusion was the expectation of being 'a special patient' during the trial. The presence of research ethics committees controlling clinical research had a significant positive impact on decisions to participate, and drawing lots and blinding were found problematic by only a minority. Patients valued their satisfaction with participation in the trials highly, and would almost all accept a request to participate in future trials. The most important reason for this was a feeling of receiving better care and information than expected outside a trial setting, primarily determined by the patients seeing only one physician during the trials. A pronounced wish to obtain follow-up information was expressed.

CONCLUSION

Attitudes towards medical research are positive with both altruistic and nonaltruistic motives for participation. Expectations of being treated as 'a special patient' in the trial were important in accepting to participate. Seeing the same physician at control visits was an important factor for satisfaction with participation.

Attitudes towards and participation in randomised clinical trials in oncology: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are the principal means by which new treatment approaches are evaluated in medicine. It has been argued that randomised clinical trials provide the highest standard of care and at the same time help to contribute to scientific knowledge. However, only a relatively small proportion of cancer patients receive treatment as part of a formal clinical trial. This article provides a broad review of the issues pertinent to physician and patient participation in randomised clinical trials.

METHODS

Search of computerised electronic databases (Medline, Psychlit, Cinhail, Embase).

RESULTS

There are a variety of physician and patient characteristics which have previously been shown to influence participation in randomised clinical trials. Additionally, ethical concerns about randomised trials in general and the additional requirements of informed consent for clinical trials, may impact on recruitment. Whilst there is some research examining strategies to improve patient understanding about clinical trials and promote patient involvement in clinical decision-making, there are deficiencies in these areas. In particular there is a paucity of research examining the association between knowledge about clinical trials, anxiety associated with a new cancer diagnosis and willingness to participate in randomised clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research also is needed to evaluate strategies to better inform patients about clinical trials.

A randomized trial assessing the impact of written information on outpatients' knowledge about and attitude toward randomized clinical trials. The INFO trial group

To improve the patient education process in clinical research, three information materials describing general aspects of design and conduct of randomized clinical trials were developed. The materials varied in length, reading ability level, and reader appeal. Their influence on knowledge about and attitude toward randomized clinical trials was assessed in a randomized, parallel group, evaluator-blinded trial among 415 outpatients. The patients were randomized to the following groups: control (no intervention), leaflet, brochure, or booklet. Knowledge was assessed by a 17-item multiple-choice questionnaire and attitude was assessed by a 32-item Likert questionnaire at entry and 2 weeks after the intervention. The interventions and the questionnaires were pilot tested and power calculations were performed. At entry, the mean knowledge score was 7.9 points. At follow-up, the knowledge scores increased by 0.5 for the control, 1.0 for the leaflet, 1.6 for the brochure, and 1.4 for the booklet. The brochure and the booklet improved the knowledge score significantly compared with the control. The general attitude was positive at entry (mean 71.5 points). Only the booklet significantly increased the total attitude score (4.8 points) and the randomized clinical trials attitude subscale score (1.8 points). In conclusion, written information significantly improved outpatients' knowledge about and attitude toward randomized clinical trials. Detailed rather than brief information was more effective. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:223-240

General practitioners' attitudes to randomised clinical trials for women with breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine general practitioners' attitudes to randomised clinical trials for women with breast cancer.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey with structured face-to-face interviews conducted between December 1997 and May 1998.

PARTICIPANTS

A random sample of GPs in central Sydney.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

GPs' attitudes to referring women with breast cancer to specialists who enrol patients in randomised clinical trials, and to randomised clinical trials in general.

RESULTS

85 of 158 GPs (54%) consented to be interviewed. Of these 85 GPs, 47% stated that they would refer a woman with breast cancer to a specialist who was likely to enrol the woman in a clinical trial; 50% believed that clinical trials increase knowledge about treatment options; and 15% thought that randomised trials may make a valuable scientific contribution. However, 43% of GPs expressed concerns that their patients may be disadvantaged, 39% said that they wanted optimum treatment for their patients, 18% that they would want to know what the trial was about, and 12% were worried about ethical considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the GPs in this survey have concerns about randomised clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Improved communication between specialists and GPs about the conduct of and treatments offered in clinical trials for breast cancer may change this attitude.

Ethical aspects of clinical trials: the attitudes of the public and out-patients

OBJECTIVES

To investigate attitudes to clinical research amongst potential research participants.

DESIGN

Questionnaire-survey.

SETTING

Two medical out-patient clinics and the background population.

SUBJECTS

A total of 508 randomly selected citizens in Copenhagen County (64% responded) and 200 consecutive patients attending the out-patient clinics (64% responded).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Attitudes toward different aspects of clinical research.

RESULTS

Positive attitudes toward medical research were disclosed. The majority found scientific testing necessary, although only a minority considered participation a moral obligation. Both personal benefits and altruistic motives for participation were highly rated, whereas former positive experiences from trial participation had only minor impact on decisions. Several respondents stated former trial participation had changed their attitudes negatively. Lack of feedback of results was of major importance for this change. Attitudes are significantly influenced by the presence of independent research ethics committees, whereas trial technicalities such as drawing lots and blinding was found problematic by only a few respondents. Altruistic motives of physicians to conduct trials were highly rated by a majority of respondents, but the motive of promoting doctors' careers was also judged important. Respondents rated nondiscomforting procedures as acceptable or having only a small impact or strain on their lives.

CONCLUSION

Attitudes toward medical research are positive amongst out-patients and the general public. Altruistic and nonaltruistic motives both concerning trial participation and concerning the motives of physicians to conduct medical research were rated highly. Lack of feedback concerning results of trials to participants was important for a negative change in attitude toward participation.

Attitudes to randomized clinical trials amongst out-patients attending a medical oncology clinic

OBJECTIVE: To assess the understanding of and attitudes towards randomized clinical trials amongst patients attending oncology out-patient clinics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SUBJECTS: Patients attending medical oncology out-patient clinics at a Sydney teaching hospital. MAIN OUTCOME: Patients' willingness to participate in a randomized clinical trial. RESULTS: Sixty consecutive patients were surveyed. The mean age was 55.2 (SD 14) years. Eighty-eight per cent of respondents thought that patients should be asked to participate in trials testing new treatments, however, only a third would consider participating in a randomized trial themselves. If a trial was endorsed by an independent cancer information service such as the NSW Cancer Council, 72% of respondents would be more likely to participate. Knowledge about randomized trials was not high. Respondents scored a median of 3 out of 7 (interquartile range, 2-4) correct answers to a series of questions about randomized trials. Patients willing to participate in a randomized trial were more likely to perceive the doctor favourably (P = 0.05), less likely to perceive trials as experimental (P = 0.05) and less likely to perceive trials as representing an inconvenience or loss of control (P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding amongst patients of the need for and mechanisms of randomized clinical trials is not good. This may contribute to the difficulties investigators face in seeking consent for clinical trials. Evaluation of new strategies to educate the public and patients about randomized trials is needed. Involvement of consumers in the design and conduct of clinical trials and evaluation of strategies to improve doctors' communication of clinical trial information is also required.

Nurses' unique roles in randomized clinical trials

Nurses are in an ideal position to promote patients' awareness of the role played by clinical trials in the advancement of health science and the subsequent improvement of patient care. The history of clinical trials and the four phases of clinical trials are described. Nurses' professional roles in clinical trial participation, such as helping the patient to identify open clinical trials and acting as clinical interpreter and patient advocate during the patient's participation in a trial, are detailed. Professional considerations that must be addressed by the nurse are reviewed and include ensuring that the trial has received approval from an Institutional Review Board for the participation of human subjects; that the responsibilities of participation are congruent with the nurse's personal values and workplace obligations; and that once engaged, the nurse can make the commitment to sustain participation in the trial. Most important, the nurse must keep the patient's needs and values uppermost in mind during the evaluation of potential clinical trials. Nurses have a critical role to play in the promotion of clinical trials, the recruitment of patients for clinical trial participation, the education of the patient and family, and the clinical care and support of patients throughout their participation in clinical trials.

Recruitment for complementary/alternative medicine trials: who participates after breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite the popularity and widespread practice of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM), researchers may face problems accruing patients to randomized clinical trials, considered the gold standard of biomedical research. Strict exclusion criteria and barriers to participation may limit accrual. Inadequate numbers of subjects decrease the ability of studies to detect an effect that exists and generalize their findings. This article describes the recruitment experience of a CAM trial, details reasons for non-participation, and contrasts participants and non-participants on demographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables.

METHODS

Women who were Houston area residents and spoke English, had primary breast cancer (excluding Stage IV), and were 1 to 30 months posttreatment with no steroids, tamoxifen, substance abuse, psychiatric or heart disease, or immune deficiency were eligible. The enrollment process involved three contacts (i.e. introductory letter and brochure, telephone calls, and reminder post cards). Potential participants were told that the study would require blood samples (30 cc) to assess immune function; psychosocial measures to assess emotional well-being, quality-of-life, social support, and coping strategies; and possible assignment to six weekly support or imagery sessions. Factors influencing recruitment and reasons for non-participation were assessed by stratified analysis and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 158 eligible participants, 30% (N = 47) consented to participate. Primary reasons for non-participation included work/childcare (33.3%), transportation/travel (30.6%), and lack of interest (24.3%). Participants were more likely to be 40-54 years of age versus younger or older, divorced/separated, and able to pay some/all medical expenses. Divorced or separated women appeared to be more likely to participate, regardless of financial status.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers must assess the impact of exclusion criteria on accrual and recognize the special needs of their target population. Although age, marital status, and pay status were the strongest predictors of participation, these factors are not amenable to intervention. Based on this study, researchers might boost accrual by providing interventions available during the day and evening to accommodate working women, child care services, transportation, or reimbursement for travel costs.

Focus group interviews examining attitudes to randomised trials among breast cancer patients and the general community

OBJECTIVE

To explore the knowledge of, and attitudes towards, randomised clinical trials among women in the community and breast cancer patients.

DESIGN

Focus group interviews were conducted with women in the community and women previously treated for localised breast cancer.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty one mothers or grandmothers of children attending a local primary school and 20 breast cancer patients identified from the records of the Medical Oncology Department, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, participated in one of eight focus group discussions examining knowledge of and attitudes towards randomised clinical trials.

RESULTS

Most women did not have a good understanding of the need for clinical trials and the manner and safeguards with which they are conducted. They did not understand the need for randomisation and were often confused about the use of placebos. Many women were wary about medical research and saw it as a gamble, only to be considered if all else failed. Clinical trials were felt to be of benefit to future generations and perhaps family members if they should fall ill. However, they were not thought to be of benefit to the individual patient.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that greater community awareness of clinical trials is needed to improve participation in clinical trials. These focus group findings require validation in a larger sample.

Electronic clinical trial protocol distribution via the World-Wide Web: a prototype for reducing costs and errors, improving accrual, and saving trees

Clinical trials today typically are inefficient, paper-based operations. Poor community physician awareness of available trials and difficult referral mechanisms also contribute to poor accrual. The Physicians Research Network (PRN) web was developed for more efficient trial protocol distribution and eligibility inquiries. The Medical University of South Carolina's Hollings Cancer Center trials program and two community oncology practices served as a testbed. In 581 man-hours over 18 months, 147 protocols were loaded into PRN. The trials program eliminated all protocol hardcopies except the masters, reduced photocopier use 59%, and saved 1.0 full-time equivalents (FTE), but 1.0 FTE was needed to manage PRN. There were no known security breaches, downtime, or content-related problems. Therefore, PRN is a paperless, user-preferred, reliable, secure method for distributing protocols and reducing distribution errors and delays because only a single copy of each protocol is maintained. Furthermore, PRN is being extended to serve other aspects of trial operations.

Informed consent in clinical trials

A review is provided in this paper on the empirical literature on informed consent from 1979 to 1995 referring to information disclosure and trial participation in clinical trials. Articles being reviewed focus upon information disclosure, reactions to disclosure and recall, features of consent and perceptions of informed consent, both in hypothetical and in real life situations. It is concluded that further research is needed to study the process of informed consent in clinical trials, to obtain a better insight into the myth and reality of informed consent in daily practice. Future studies should come forward on the limitations of previous empirical research on informed consent. Additional research should focus on the perspectives of patients who accept or decline trial participation.

Clinical trials

The randomized clinical trial is a scientific method for solving clinical problems. The method is typically employed before a new type of treatment is offered on a major scale in order to safeguard patients against a less curative therapy. Especially with regard to cancer treatment, randomized studies are conducted in increasing numbers. However, there remains a considerable discrepancy between the actual number of patients entered in randomized trials and the eligible number available. The demand of obtaining informed consent is a major reason for not entering patients into randomized studies. The critical item is whether information about randomization as a method for allocation should be disclosed to the patient. The doctor feels embarrassed not to be able to advise and support the patient in decision making about treatment and finds his or her role as the caring doctor replaced by the roulette. The requirement to seek informed consent has increased the rate of denial to participate in randomized trials from a few percent, up to about 50% or even higher.

Cancer clinical trials in the community setting: a 20 year retrospective

During the past two decades clinical cancer research in the United States has grown dramatically and has been significantly enhanced by the participation of community hospitals, practicing oncologists, and the creation of community cancer clinical trials organizations. More than 102,000 patients have been enrolled by these community based groups to important clinical trials which have answered questions that have improved cancer treatment in this country and worldwide (Figure 3, Table 8). Practicing oncologists are now well trained in the practice of clinical research and efforts should be directed to ensure that their participation in clinical research continues to increase. There are many obstacles to performing clinical cancer research, but none is greater than the issue of cost. We are currently facing the daunting prospect that health care reform may dramatically curtail or bias future cancer clinical trials. Consumers, providers, politicians, and the general public must be educated to protect and expand the cancer clinical research structure so that we can continue the pursuit of optimal cancer management.