A comparison of patient knowledge of clinical trials and trialist priorities

Consultations about randomised controlled trials are shorter and less in-depth for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients compared to socioeconomically advantaged patients: qualitative analysis across three trials

BACKGROUND

Patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are underserved in randomised controlled trials, yet they experience a much greater burden of disease compared with patients from socioeconomically advantaged areas. It is crucial to make trials more inclusive to ensure that treatments and interventions are safe and effective in real-world contexts. Improving how information about trials is verbally communicated is an unexplored strategy to make trials more inclusive. This study examined how trials are communicated verbally, comparing consultations involving patients from the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas.

METHODS

Secondary qualitative analysis of 55 trial consultation transcripts from 41 patients, sampled from 3 qualitative studies embedded in their respective UK multi-site, cancer-related randomised controlled trials. Patients living in the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, defined using English Indices of Multiple Deprivation decile scores, were purposively sampled. Analysis was largely thematic and drew on the constant comparison method.

RESULTS

Recruiters communicated clinical uncertainty in a similar way for patients living in different socioeconomic areas. Consultations with disadvantaged patients were, on average, half the duration of those with advantaged patients, and tended to involve recruiters providing less in-depth explanations of trial concepts, used phrasing that softened trial arm risks, and described trial processes (e.g. randomisation) using informal or metaphorical phrasing. Disadvantaged and advantaged patients differed in the concerns they expressed; disadvantaged patients voiced fewer concerns and asked fewer questions but were also less likely to be invited to do so by recruiters.

CONCLUSION

Interactions about trials unfolded in different ways between patients living in different socioeconomic areas, likely due to both patient- and recruiter-related factors. We present considerations for recruiters when discussing trials with patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, aimed at enhancing trial communication. Future research should examine disadvantaged patients' and recruiters' experiences of verbal trial communication to inform guidance that addresses the needs and preferences of underserved groups.

Exploring patient-reported barriers to participating in proton therapy clinical trials

Introduction

Clinical trials lead the progress in healthcare. To ensure reliable research conclusions, it is essential to enroll diverse patient groups. Identifying and understanding patient-reported barriers to clinical trials may help enhance recruitment among diverse patient groups.The clinical potential of proton therapy (PT) to reduce late effects is being investigated in clinical trials worldwide. Thus, for some patients, PT is only accessible by participating in clinical trials.Individuals with smoking-related head and neck cancer (HNC) are sometimes socioeconomically deprived, leading to barriers to trial participation. This study aims to identify barriers to their participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving PT.

Method

Interviews were conducted with 14 HNC patients declining participation in an RCT involving PT. The interviews were transcribed and systematically analysed using an inductive approach identifying categories and themes.

Results

The identified barriers to RCT-participation are: (1) existential distress, which influenced participants' mental and cognitive capacities, (2) insufficient RCT-related knowledge arising from information overload during clinical consultations, (3) the wish for safety and familiarity during the treatment trajectory, particularly for participants needing accommodation during  radiotherapy, and (4) the motivation for study participation was impacted by uncertainty due to randomisation and clinical equipoise. Existential distress is identified as an overarching theme because it influences and amplifies the other three themes.

Conclusion

Existential distress is a central theme that influences and amplifies other participation barriers in PT RCTs. It affects participants' comprehension of trial information, their preference for familiar environments, and their motivation to participate in clinical trials.

Understanding potential participation barriers to improve trial design and outcomes: clinical trial simulation in palmoplantar pustulosis as a case study

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the experiences and perceptions of patients participating in a simulated clinical trial and identify ways to enhance future patient-centric trial designs.

DESIGN

International, multicentre, non-interventional, virtual clinical trial visits with patient debriefs and advisory boards.

SETTING

Virtual clinic visits and accompanying advisory boards.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine patients with palmoplantar pustulosis for simulated trial visits; 14 patients and patient representatives for advisory boards.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Qualitative responses to trial documentation, visit schedule and logistics, and trial design were collected during patient debriefs. Results were discussed at two virtual advisory board meetings.

RESULTS

Patients identified key barriers to participation and potential difficulties encountered when attending trial visits and completing assessments. They also proposed recommendations to overcome these challenges. Patients recognised the need for comprehensive informed consent forms, but recommended use of non-technical language, brevity and additional support to aid understanding. Other trial documentations should be relevant to the disease and include known efficacy and safety of the study drug. Patients were concerned about receiving placebo, stopping existing medications and being unable to receive the study drug after trial completion; therefore, patients and physicians recommended an open-label extension following trial completion. Trial visits were too numerous (n=20) and too long (3-4 hours each); patients recommended improvements to the design to make best use of their time and reduce unnecessary waiting. They also requested financial and logistical support. Patients expressed a desire for study outcomes that matter to them, related to their ability to undertake normal daily activities and not be a burden to others.

CONCLUSIONS

Simulated trials are an innovative method for assessing trial design and acceptance from a patient-centric perspective, enabling specific improvements to be made prior to trial initiation. Incorporation of recommendations from simulated trials could enhance trial recruitment and retention, and optimise trial outcomes and data quality.

Are We Scared of Clinical Trials if Not Sufficiently Informed and Educated?

PURPOSE

Educational interventions have already been shown to positively affect awareness of clinical trials (CTs) among medical students. We aimed to explore basic knowledge and attitudes about CTs among medical students in terms of educational interventions that should be reflected in their further involvement in performing CTs and their role in raising awareness about CTs.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, self-report anonymous online survey involved undergraduate medical students of the Medical Faculty University of Sarajevo enrolled in classes held within the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology in the academic year 2015-2016. To include all accessible subjects for better representation of the whole population, consecutive sampling was applied.

RESULTS

Among 142 students who completed questionnaire, 50% of them expressed partial or full agreement with the questionnaire statement that they were satisfied with the available information on CTs. Only 38% said they would participate in a CT, 21% would not, while 41% were not sure. Positive correlations were detected for composite subscale scores of agreement with questionnaire statements conveying the student's knowledge about ethical and legal aspects of CTs and their perception about reliability/integrity and impact of CTs on medical practice.

CONCLUSION

Students have knowledge of the basic design and ethical aspects of CTs. Positive attitudes toward the impact of CTs on medical practice were shown in students of higher years of study, where educational intervention of additional knowledge of CTs was inserted and those students expressed better knowledge of CTs. However, no significant impact was detected between knowledge and willingness to participate in CTs, irrespective of years of study, reflecting the third of students that would participate in CTs. Changes in medical curricula led to the change in students' knowledge and attitudes regarding CTs as well as their involvement in CTs.

Patients’ knowledge about their involvement in clinical trials. A non-randomized controlled trial

Background

Nowadays, good clinical practice should be established in human research. Patient’s rights and autonomy must be respected above the interest of the researcher, making mandatory to raise patient’s awareness on the implications of participating in a clinical study. Contrary to popular belief, this is not always the case. This means that, after signing the informed consent form, some patients have difficulties understanding their responsibilities as participants.

Materials and methods

This study is a prospective, multicenter, non-randomized controlled trial comparative survey conducted on patients enrolled in a clinical trial to evaluate and improve their understanding after an educational intervention was applied to the research staff.

Results

Females were underrepresented in the clinical trials performed in this study, 21.5%. Most of the participants had a low educational level (74.4%). Around 5 and 10% of the research participants were not aware they were part of a clinical study, and more 24% just trusted in the medical decision to be enrolled. After the interventional education, the following items: “given time and resolution of the patient doubts” (p-value = 0.003), “enough written information” (p-value = 0.006), “explanation of the risks of participating in the study,” (p-value = 0.047) and understanding of the information provided to them showed an improvement regarding the study in which they were participating.

Conclusion

The research participants understanding of their involvement in clinical trials is limited. An educational intervention on the research team can improve the process of empowerment and transit of information.

Development and Evaluation of the Clinical Trial HEalth Knowledge and Beliefs Scale (CHEKS)

Patient health literacy is vital to clinical trial engagement. Knowledge and beliefs about clinical trials may contribute to patient literacy of clinical trials, influencing engagement, enrollment and retention. We developed and assessed a survey that measures clinical trial health knowledge and beliefs, known as the Clinical trial HEalth Knowledge and belief Scale (CHEKS). The 31 survey items in CHEKS represent knowledge and beliefs about clinical trial research (n = 409) in 2017. We examined item-scale correlations for the 31 items, eliminated items with item-scale correlations less than 0.30, and then estimated internal consistency reliability for the remaining 25 items. We used the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) to evaluate model fit. The average age of the sample was 34 (SD = 15.7) and 48% female. We identified 6 of the 31 items that had item-scale correlations (corrected for overlap) lower than 0.30. Coefficient alpha for the remaining 25 items was 0.93 A one-factor categorical confirmatory factor analytic model with 16 correlated errors was not statistically significant (chi-square = 10011.994, df = 300, p < 0.001) but fit the data well (CFI = 0.95 and RMSEA = 0.07). CHEKS can assess clinical trial knowledge and beliefs.

External Validity of the Multicenter Randomized PREOPANC Trial on Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: Outcome of Eligible but Nonrandomized Patients

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the accrual proportion and patients' reasons for not participating in the PREOPANC trial on neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus immediate surgery in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, and to compare these patients' outcomes with those of patients who had been randomized in the trial.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The external validity of multicenter randomized trials in cancer treatment has been criticized for suboptimal non-representative inclusion. In trials, it is unclear how outcomes compare between randomized and nonrandomized patients.

METHODS

At 8 of 16 participant centers, this multicenter observational study identified validation patients, who had been eligible but not randomized during recruitment for the PREOPANC trial. We assessed the accrual proportion, investigated their most common reasons for not participating in the trial, and compared resection rates, radical (R0) resection rates, and overall survival between the validation patients and PREOPANC patients, who had been randomized in the trial to immediate surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 455 patients had been eligible during the recruitment period, 151 of whom (33%) had been randomized. Fifty-five percent of the 304 validation patients had refused to participate. Median overall survival in the validation group was 15.2 months, against 15.5 months in the PREOPANC group (P = 1.00). The respective resection rates (76% vs 73%) and R0 resection rates (51% vs 46%) did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The PREOPANC trial included a reasonable percentage of 33% of eligible patients. In terms of the outcomes survival, resection rate, and R0 resection rate, this appeared to be a representative group.

Tailored Messages About Research Participation: Using an Interactive Information Aid to Improve Study Recruitment

After a diagnosis of cancer (or other serious disease), patients may be asked to consider joining a clinical trial. Because most people are unfamiliar with the scientific concepts that are necessary to the provision of meaningful informed consent, patient education is necessary. Increasing knowledge alone is not sufficient; understanding how clinical trial participation aligns with personal circumstances and knowledge is central to the decision-making process. In this study, 302 cancer patients and survivors evaluated an interactive information aid (IA) designed to inform their decision to join a research study or clinical trial by providing tailored information to patients' responses to questions pertaining to seven key barriers or facilitators of clinical trial participation. The development of the IA was done with input from the authors' Clinical Translational Science Institute; linked components of the IA were vetted by members and leaders of the institution's NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Results of the study indicated that the information aid was successful in significantly reducing fears and increasing knowledge, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions about research participation relative to a control condition. Thus, an interactive information aid that provides information that is responsive to patients' values, knowledge, and personal circumstances can help patients to be better prepared to consider a decision about research participation.

Oncologic patients' misconceptions may impede enrollment into clinical trials: a cross-sectional study

Background

Clinical trials are an essential source for advances in oncologic care, yet the enrollment rate is only 2-4%. Patients' reluctance to participate is an important barrier. This study evaluates patients' level of understanding and attitudes towards clinical trials.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the oncology department and day care unit at the oncology division Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Israel. From January 2015 to September 2016. Two-hundred patients’ currently receiving active anti-cancer therapy at a large tertiary hospital completed an anonymous questionnaire comprised of demographic information, past experience in clinical research and basic knowledge on clinical trials.

Results

The majority of respondents did not meet the minimum knowledge level criteria. In those who replied they would decline to participate in a clinical trial, concern were related to potential assignment to the placebo arm, provision of informed consent and trust issues with their oncologist. Those with sufficient knowledge were significantly more interested in participating. Patients with past experience in clinical trials had a higher level of academic education, were less religious, had a better understanding of medical research and were inclined to participate in future research.

Conclusions

Misperceptions of clinical trials may contribute substantially to the unwillingness to participate in them.

Construction and Piloting of Attitude Towards Research Participation Scale for University Students

Introduction

Attitude toward participation in the research plays an important role in the quality of any research. Therefore, researchers aimed at construction and piloting of scale to measure attitude toward research participation for university students.

Method and Results

In Study I, an initial pool of items was generated on the basis of literature review, semi-structured interviews and expert opinions. After ensuring content validity and finalizing items with the help of experts, the scale was applied on a sample of 426 university students including both men (n = 114) and women (n = 312) with age range of 17–30. Exploratory factor analysis revealed the two factor structure was with 60.33% cumulative variance. The factors revealed were positive attitude and negative attitude toward research with alpha reliability of 0.84 for positive attitude while 0.76 for negative attitude. In Study II, confirmatory factor analysis revealed excellent model fit indices with two factor structure. Study III was meant to provide evidence of construct validity. Positive correlation showed exploration and curiosity with positive attitude toward research and negative correlation of exploration and curiosity with negative attitude toward research participation provided strong evidence for convergent validity. While non-significant correlation of attitude toward research with religiosity confirmed the divergent validity of the scale.

Conclusion

Findings of the study revealed that Attitude Toward Research Participation Scale is a valid and reliable measure. It can be used for university students to measure their attitude toward research.

What Motivates You to Share? The Effect of Interactive Tailored Information Aids on Information Sharing about Clinical Trials

Cancer patients learn about research studies outside of the clinical environment, including websites, print and online advertisements, and interpersonal interactions. When cancer patients share credible information about clinical trials, they also frequently help clarify misunderstandings that may exist in their social networks. The present study investigated how an interactive tailored information aid on clinical trial participation motivated patients' information sharing behaviors. In this study of 312 cancer patients and survivors, an interactive tailored information aid improved patients' likelihood of sharing online and offline information more than a non-interactive tool. Information sharing was directly predicted by cognitive absorption and perceived visual informativeness. In addition, perceived utility and ease of use indirectly impact information sharing positively through the antecedent factors of user engagement and design esthetics. Education level further moderated this effect; information sharing was higher among patients with more education. The implications of these findings are discussed and recommendations for future research are provided.

Distinctive aspects of consent in pilot and feasibility studies

Prior to a main randomized clinical trial, investigators often carry out a pilot or feasibility study in order to test certain trial processes or estimate key statistical parameters, so as to optimize the design of the main trial and/or determine whether it can feasibly be run. Pilot studies reflect the design of the intended main trial, whereas feasibility studies may not do so, and may not involve allocation to different treatments. Testing relative clinical effectiveness is not considered an appropriate aim of pilot or feasibility studies. However, consent is no less important than in a main trial as a means of morally legitimizing the investigator's actions. Two misperceptions are central to consent in clinical studies-therapeutic misconception (a tendency to conflate research and therapy) and therapeutic misestimation (a tendency to overestimate possible benefits and/or underestimate possible harms associated with participation). These phenomena may take a distinctive form in pilot and feasibility studies, owing to potential participants' likely prior unfamiliarity with the nature and purposes of such studies. Thus, participants may confuse the aims of a pilot or feasibility study (developing or optimizing trial design and processes) with those of a main trial (testing treatment effectiveness) and base consent on this misconstrual. Similarly, a misunderstanding of the ability of pilot and feasibility studies to provide information that will inform clinical care, or the underdeveloped nature of interventions included in such studies, may lead to inaccurate assessments of the objective possibility of benefit, and weaken the epistemic basis of consent accordingly. Equipoise may also be particularly challenging to grasp in the context of a pilot study. The consent process in pilot and feasibility studies requires a particular focus, and careful communication, if it is to carry the appropriate moral weight. There are corresponding implications for the process of ethical approval.

Untangling interactivity's effects: The role of cognitive absorption, perceived visual informativeness, and cancer information overload

OBJECTIVE

Learning about clinical trials is as stressful and challenging for cancer patients as it is for the clinical staff who provide education to patients. Information aids (IAs) can support both discussions and patients' decision-making, especially when IAs offer interactive features that provide information based on individuals' needs and experiences. However, it is not clear which factors contribute to interactive IAs' effectiveness.

METHODS

An experiment with cancer patients and survivors (n = 313) compared the effects of two IAs about clinical trial participation: one with modality (i.e. website/technological) interactivity only and one with both modality and message interactivity (i.e. provides information contingent on individual users' information needs).

RESULTS

The IA with both modality and message interactivity features elicited the higher perceived visual informativeness (PVI) and cognitive absorption (CA) scores. The model supports the moderating role of PVI and cancer information overload (CIO), and the mediating role of CA.

CONCLUSION

The IA with both modality and message interactivity better supported individuals' decision-making and improved attitudes and knowledge scores. CIO was experienced more by participants using the modality interactivity-only IA.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Message interactivity may simplify individuals' cognitive processes. IAs about clinical trial participation should include both message and modality interactivity.

Clinical trials: Predictors of knowledge and attitudes towards participation

AIMS

Clinical trials (CTs) are critical to advancing of patient care. Understanding the public's knowledge and the attitudes towards participating in CTs is important for their successful implication. In Jordan this data are currently not available. The present study aimed to explore the knowledge, attitude and perception of Jordanians towards CTs participation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 1216 Jordanians recruited from public hospitals and pharmaceutical research centres.

RESULTS

About 20.5% of the respondents have previously participated in a CT. About 68.3% and 50.1% had good knowledge and positive attitude towards CTs, respectively. Good knowledge was associated with male gender (OR = 1.696, 95% CI = 1.284-0.240, P < .001), higher education (OR = 1.433, 95% CI = 1.107-1.856, P = .006) and healthy condition (OR = 1.822, 95% CI = 1.234-2.690, P = .003); while older age was associated with a poor knowledge (OR = 0.985, 95% CI = 0.972-0.998, P = .026). Female gender (OR = 1.817, 95% CI = 1.406-2.349, P < .001), higher education (OR = 1.294, 95% CI = 1.017-1.646, P = .036) and previous participation (OR = 1.919, 95% CI = 1.388-2.653, P < .001) were factors predicting the positive attitudes. A very weak positive correlation was found between knowledge and attitude (Spearman's r = 0.074, P = .01). Regarding perceptions, most of the respondents (85.3%) perceive that CTs are conducted in an ethical manner in Jordan, only 52.9% however feel comfortable towards participation. A moderate positive correlation was found between knowledge and perception (Spearman's r = 0.275, P < .001). Taking part in a CT significantly affect knowledge, attitudes and perceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed important insights regarding knowledge, attitudes and perception of Jordanians towards CTs. Educational interventions can improve awareness of the ethical standards under which CTs are conducted affecting the perception to participate. Promotion of CTs among patients and healthy individuals is needed to increase participation.

An Evaluation of Clinical Trial Multimedia to Support Hispanic Cancer Patients' Informational and Decision-Making Needs

The inclusion of diverse populations in clinical trial research is a social justice imperative. Creating the communicative tools that can support cancer patients across varied cultural backgrounds in processing complex clinical trial information, to achieve informed consent, has been a challenge. This study sought to evaluate specific clinical trial multimedia-a website, four animations, and a decision aid-to meet the decision-making and informational needs of Hispanic patients. The multimedia content was positively evaluated by Hispanic cancer patients. However, the discussions also yielded important steps for culturally adapting these tools to account for particular informational needs and cultural values that would be important to incorporate into these, and future, clinical trial multimedia interventions that target Hispanic populations.

Participant perception, still a major challenge to clinical research in developing countries-A mixed methods study

Background

With the introduction of the Clinical Trial Act in 2011, Mauritius has witnessed significant progress in the running of clinical trials. Our aim was to provide insights on the perception of clinical trials among Mauritian citizens and highlight areas of opportunities to address gaps in public perception and awareness.

Population, materials and methods

A mixed study was carried out which consisted of 2 phases: a qualitative, with thematic approach followed by a quantitative study with cross-sectional design. For the qualitative study, computer literate individuals were invited to fill an unstructured, online open-ended questionnaire. Conclusions derived from the latter were used to adapt a validated questionnaire which was then distributed to 400 consented participants.

Results

There were 23 participants who responded to the online qualitative survey, which showed poor knowledge and diverse views on clinical trials. Quantitatively up to 48% of the participants were not aware of clinical trials which included people of older age group, those from low socioeconomic status and those with low literacy level (p<0.050). Majority of respondents agreed with the value of research while a minority had poor perception related to trust in research companies and conduct of clinical trials. Respondents who had previously engaged in clinical research had better knowledge and perception compared to those who did not participate in one (Odds Ratio = 1.7).

Conclusion

This novel study provided a foundation of how Mauritian citizens perceive clinical trials. Public awareness and educational programs can be created to address lack of awareness, the negative perceptions and knowledge gaps of clinical trials among Mauritian citizens.

Ready to Make A Decision: A Model of Informational Aids to Improve Informed Participation in Clinical Trial Research

Enrollment rates for cancer clinical trials remain low, affecting the generalizability of new treatments. Research shows that many patients face significant challenges in understanding basic clinical trial vocabulary and making informed decisions about participation. Informational aids (IA) are developed to address these challenges and support decision making of cancer clinical trial participation. The present study proposed and tested a structural path model to explain the efficacy of three (i.e., interactive, non-interactive, non-cancer control) IAs. The results revealed that clinical trial participation intention was associated with attitudes and social constructs (i.e., social norm, social sharing, and cues to action). Ease of use, rather than knowledge, was the primary communication feature of IA that influenced the outcome variables. The path relations linking messages features, mediators, and outcome variables were different across all three IAs. The results therefore provide theoretical and practical implications for the use and development of IAs to support clinical trial accrual.

What do adult outpatients included in clinical trials know about the investigational drugs being assessed: A cross-sectional study in France

This study aimed to assess patient investigational medication knowledge and to identify factors associated with medication understanding by adult outpatients included in clinical trials. A cross-sectional prospectively designed survey was conducted on consecutive volunteers at 21 university teaching hospitals (in France) from February to December 2014. Investigational medication understanding was assessed at the time of the first dispensing using a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire based on information obtained from the literature that provided an 8-point score. Demographic and other baseline data were collected using structured interviews. Of the 236 participants, 139 (58.9%) of the respondents were male, and the median age was 54.9 years (range: 18–83 years). The mean understanding score was 6.24 and 72.5% of the patients had a score of 6 or higher. In univariate analysis, the medication understanding score was negatively correlated with age (r = -0.15, p = 0.0247) and positively correlated with the level of education (r = 0.25, p = 0.0002). In multivariate analysis, prognostic factors of a higher medication understanding score were: graduation from high school or a higher level of education; HIV infection; phase II/III/IV studies; mention of the drug on the prescription form, and the dispensing of a single investigational medication. Only a quarter of the adult outpatients included in clinical trials had a maximum possible investigational medication understanding score. Being old and having a low level of education were found to be important risk factors for inadequate medication understanding. This and other data suggest that sponsors should encourage initiatives aimed at improving investigational medication understanding in adults enrolled in clinical trials.

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.

Questionnaire on Attitude towards Research and Care (QuARC): a survey of patients with psychosis

Background: The patients' appraisal, satisfaction and attitude toward research is crucial to obtain reliable information, in psychiatry frequently not objective.Aim: We operationalised the information derived from studies on satisfaction and attitude towards research and developed a standardized measure, whose internal consistency and factor structure was investigated.Method: The Questionnaire on Attitude towards Research and health Care (QuARC) is a 10-item self-report scale, administered to 116 patients with psychotic disorders participating in research protocols. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted and internal consistency evaluated.Results: Two factors have been identified: one labelled External Factor, including items related to information on the received treatment, relationship with third parties, and one labelled Internal Factor with items related to the disorder, perceived well-being and contribution to scientific knowledge. Cronbach's alpha internal consistencies were good.Conclusions: The QuARC is easy to use, well accepted, with good psychometric properties. The constructs identified are different from the original issues addressed (i.e. attitude and satisfaction), prevailing different constructs closer to the patient opinion on the research and personal condition. These constructs identify dimensions useful to delineate and understand the patients' experience of participating in a scientific project as well as their satisfaction.

Patients' understanding of clinical research: An Italian cancer patient survey

INTRODUCTION:

Patients' awareness of clinical research and their involvement in clinical trials is of great importance, but it is difficult to estimate the extent of knowledge on the research being undertaken.

METHODS:

We evaluated the level of knowledge about clinical research using a self-reporting survey distributed to 967 adult patients with cancer attending the Departments of Medical Oncology and Onco-Haematology Units of IRST IRCCS and 4 hospitals in the region of Emilia-Romagna, Italy. The questionnaire was composed of 10 specific items on research knowledge. Patients responding correctly to at least 8 of the 10 items were considered to have a good understanding of clinical research.

RESULTS:

The questionnaire was completed by 769 patients (response rate 79.5%). Only 19% of patients were found to have a good understanding of clinical research. Patients with higher education and those who had previous clinical trial experience showed a significantly better understanding. Fifty-three percent of patients said that they would be willing to participate in a trial studying a new drug and 75% expressed an interest in taking part in informative meetings/events about clinical studies.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our results show that patients' understanding of clinical research is limited and highlight an interest in learning more.

Reducing attrition within clinical trials: The communication of retention and withdrawal within patient information leaflets

BACKGROUND

The recruitment and retention of patients are significant methodological challenges for trials. Whilst research has focussed on recruitment, the failure to retain recruited patients and collect outcome data can lead to additional problems and potentially biased results. Research to identify effective retention strategies has focussed on influencing patient behaviour through incentives, reminders and alleviating patient burden, but has not sought to improve patient understanding of the importance of retention. Our aim is to assess how withdrawal, retention and the value of outcome data collection is described within the Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) used during consent.

METHODS

Fifty adult or parent PIL from a cohort of trials starting between 2009-2012 and funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme were obtained from protocols, websites or by contacting trialists. A checklist of PIL content based on Health Research Authority (HRA) and ICH GCP Guidelines was supplemented with retention specific questions. Corresponding protocols were also evaluated to cross reference trial specific procedures with information communicated to patients.

RESULTS

PIL frequently reiterated the patient's right to withdraw at any time (n = 49, 98%), without having to give a reason and without penalty (n = 45, 90%). However, few informed patients they may be asked to give a withdrawal reason where willing (n = 6, 12%). Statements about the value of retention were infrequent (n = 8, 16%). Consent documents failed to include key content that might mitigate withdrawals, such as the need for treatment equipoise (n = 3, 6%). Nearly half the trials in the cohort (n = 23, 46%) wanted to continue to collect outcome data if patients withdraw. However, in 70% of PIL using prospective consent, withdrawal was described in generic terms leaving patients unaware of the difference between stopping treatment and all trial involvement. Nineteen (38%) trials offered withdrawing patients the option to delete existing data.

CONCLUSIONS

Withdrawal and retention is poorly described within PIL and addressing this might positively impact levels of patient attrition, reducing missing data. Consent information is unbalanced, focussing on patient's rights to withdraw without accompanying information that promotes robust consent and sustained participation. With many citing altruistic reasons for participation it is essential that PIL include more information on retention and clarify withdrawal terminology so patients are aware of how they can make a valuable contribution to clinical studies. There is a need to determine how retention can be described to patients to avoid concerns of coercion. Future research is needed to explore whether the absence of information about retention at the time of consent is impacting attrition.

From the other side: The patient perspective on cancer clinical trials

This article provides the patient perspective on cancer clinical trials.

Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions of Saudis towards Participating in Clinical Trials

Aim

To assess the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of Saudis towards participating in clinical trials (CTs).

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 232 Saudi adult patients and their companions visiting adult outpatient clinics at King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire based on information obtained from the literature. The questionnaire was divided into four sections, one covering the respondents’ demographics, and the other three assessing knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions towards participating in CTs.

Results

A total of 148 (63.8%) respondents were males, and 52 (22.4%) participants had been invited to participate in a CT previously. Of those, 39 (75%) participated. Knowledge about the essential elements of informed consent ranged from 55.7% (number of participants needed) to 85.7% (confidentiality of personal information). The majority (163, 73.8%) of respondents was willing to participate in a CT after consulting their family physician and 130 (58.0%) respondents would be motivated to participate in a CT if they were healthy. Only 36.8% of the respondents believed that patients who participated in a CT received the best care. Moreover, 110 (48.7%) respondents believed that research was conducted in a responsible and ethical manner.

Conclusions

The present study assessed the current understanding of CTs among Saudi participants. Although the majority of participants had an acceptable level of knowledge about CTs, they exhibited conditional attitudes and misperceptions towards participating in a CT. Increased patient awareness may improve patients’ attitudes towards ethical conduct of CTs.

Knowledge and attitudes regarding medical research studies among patients with breast cancer and gynecological diseases

Background

Medical research studies are becoming increasingly important for optimizing the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. Participation in research studies can have many benefits for patients. In randomized and controlled clinical studies, they can receive the best possible medical care currently available. However, only a small proportion of patients nowadays are treated within the framework of medical research. The primary endpoint of this study was to discover what level of knowledge patients have about clinical studies and how they currently perceive them, in order to identify ways of optimizing the information provided about studies from the patients’ point of view.

Methods

The study included 2546 patients (breast cancer 21.6 %, gynecological cancer 8.3 %, obstetrics 32.7 %, endometriosis 7.8 %, fertility treatment 3.2 %, other benign gynecological illnesses 19.2 %, no information for 7.2 %) in the outpatient clinic (45.2 %) and in the in-patient sector (54.8 %) at the Department of Gynecology at Erlangen University Hospital and associated centers. In the single-center study, conducted between January 2011 and January 2012, the patients were asked about their level of knowledge regarding the background to medical research studies and the ways in which they are carried out and used. The patients were also asked how they perceived medical studies and how they thought study conditions might be optimized. The three-page questionnaire was included in the feedback sheet received by patients as part of the hospital’s quality management system.

Results

As a whole, the group only had moderate knowledge about clinical studies. A majority of the respondents considered that studies were valuable (91.6 %), but only a few were also willing to take part in them (58.4 %). Knowledge and willingness to participate strongly depended on age (P < 0.001), educational level (P < 0.001) and patient group (P < 0.001). Most patients would prefer to decide about participating in studies through a discussion with their outpatient physicians.

Conclusions

The information that patients have about clinical studies affects whether they participate in them. It is therefore extremely important for patients to be well informed, for their anxieties about participation to be relieved, and for the benefits of participation to be explained to them.

Characteristics of clinical trials that require participants to be fluent in English

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Diverse samples in clinical trials can make findings more generalizable. We sought to characterize the prevalence of clinical trials in the United States that required English fluency for participants to enroll in the trial.

METHODS

We randomly chose over 10,000 clinical trial protocols registered with ClinicalTrials.gov and examined the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the trials. We compared the relationship of clinical trial characteristics with English fluency inclusion requirements. We merged the ClinicalTrials.gov data with US Census and American Community Survey data to investigate the association of English-language restrictions with ZIP-code-level demographic characteristics of participating institutions. We used Chi-squared tests, t-tests, and logistic regression models for analyses.

RESULTS

English fluency requirements have been increasing over time, from 1.7% of trials having such requirements before 2000 to 9.0% after 2010 (p < 0.001 from Chi-squared test). Industry-sponsored trials had low rates of English fluency requirements (1.8%), while behavioral trials had high rates (28.4%). Trials opening in the Northeast of the United States had the highest regional English requirement rates (10.7%), while trials opening in more than one region had the lowest (3.3%, p<0.001). Since 1995, trials opening in ZIP codes with larger Hispanic populations were less likely to have English fluency requirements (odds ratio=0.92 for each 10% increase in proportion of Hispanics, 95% confidence interval=0.86-0.98, p=0.013). Trials opening in ZIP codes with more residents self-identifying as Black/African American (odds ratio=1.87, 95% confidence interval=1.36-2.58, p<0.001 for restricted cubic spline term) or Asian (odds ratio=1.16 for linear term, 95% confidence interval=1.07-1.25, p<0.001) were more likely to have English fluency requirements. ZIP codes with higher poverty rates had trials with more English-language restrictions (odds ratio=1.06 for a 10% poverty rate increase, 95% confidence interval=1.001-1.11, p=0.045). There was a statistically significant interaction between year and intervention type, such that the increase in English fluency requirements was more common for some interventions than for others.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov that have English fluency requirements for study inclusion has been increasing over time. English-language restrictions are associated with a number of characteristics, including the demographic characteristics of communities in which the sponsoring institutions are located.

Clinical trials perception in rheumatology patients: experience from a single rheumatology tertiary center

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the perception and willingness of rheumatology patients to participate in clinical trials. No previous similar studies are available.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of rheumatology patients using a questionnaire, which comprised 2 demographic questions, two 5-point Likert opinion questions, 19 true/false/unsure knowledge questions, and 1 open question addressing what would help the participant to gain a better understanding about clinical trials.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients returned the questionnaires (response rate 84.1%). The mean number of correct answers to the 19 knowledge questions was 10.5 ± 2.87. Patients with higher versus lower levels of education had significantly higher knowledge scores (mean correct answers 59.4 ± 13.1 vs 39.8 ± 20.4, p = 0.013). They also expressed greater willingness to take part in research (87.5% vs 48.2%, p < 0.001). The patients who agreed to participate in research provided significantly more correct answers (59.4 ± 15.3% vs 47.7 ± 27.2%, p = 0.032). Poor disease control as the main reason to join a clinical trial correlated well with patients' previous participation in research (r = 0.71; p < 0.05) and the lack of understanding of research principles (defined as less than 50% correct answers to the knowledge questions) correlated with the lack of willingness to participate in clinical trials (r = 0.72; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results of our study revealed that patients lack information about clinical trials (the correct response rate was only slightly above 50%), and that they had a moderate willingness to take part in clinical trials. The need for educational programs about clinical research was highlighted by the participants to the survey.

Placebo-controlled clinical trials: how trial documents justify the use of randomisation and placebo

BACKGROUND

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involve procedures such as randomisation, blinding, and placebo use, which are not part of standard medical care. Patients asked to participate in RCTs often experience difficulties in understanding the meaning of these and their justification.

METHODS

We reviewed RCT protocols, statements of the principal investigator (PI), and participant-information materials, as submitted for opinion to a research ethics committee. We evaluated how the justification for the use of placebo was described in these documents and how the participants had been informed about randomisation, placebo use, and the possible risks of receiving placebo.

RESULTS

In total, 52 RCTs were identified. Eighteen of the study protocols (35%) provided some rationale for the use of placebo. In 15 (29%) of the statements, the PI had provided justification for its use. Possible risks related to placebo use were described in nine (17%) of the statements. An explanation as to why placebo was necessary featured in only 12 (23%) of the sets of participant-information materials, and only six (12%) of the documents discussed the possible risks associated with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The justification of placebo control was inadequately described in the RCT study protocols, by principal or national co-ordinating investigators, and in participant-information documents. Furthermore, possible health-related risks associated with the use of placebo were poorly explained in the participant-information documents. Ethics committes and study participants need to be better informed of the rationale for the use of placebo, along with the associated risks.