Dataset Information

Informed consent in oncology clinical trials: A Brown University Oncology Research Group prospective cross-sectional pilot study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Informed consent forms (ICFs) for oncology clinical trials have grown increasingly longer and more complex. We evaluated objective understanding of critical components of informed consent among patients enrolling in contemporary trials of conventional or novel biologic/targeted therapies. METHODS:We evaluated ICFs for cancer clinical trials for length and readability, and patients registered on those studies were asked to complete a validated 14-question survey assessing their understanding of key characteristics of the trial. Mean scores were compared in groups defined by trial and patient characteristics. RESULTS:Fifty patients, of whom half participated in trials of immunotherapy or biologic/targeted agents and half in trials of conventional therapy, completed the survey. On average, ICFs for industry-originated trials (N = 9 trials) were significantly longer (P < .0001) and had lower Flesch ease-of-reading scores (P = .003) than investigator-initiated trials (N = 11). At least 80% of patients incorrectly responded to three key questions which addressed the experimental nature of their trial therapy, its purported efficacy and potential risks relative to alternative treatments. The mean objective understanding score was 76.9±8.8, but it was statistically significantly lower for patients who had not completed high school (P = .011). The scores did not differ significantly by type of cancer therapy (P = .12) or trial sponsor (P = .38). CONCLUSIONS:Many participants enrolled on cancer trials had poor understanding of essential elements of their trial. In order to ensure true informed consent, innovative approaches, such as expanded in-person counseling adapted to the patient's education level or cultural characteristics should be evaluated across socio-demographic groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01772511.

SUBMITTER: Schumacher A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5325585 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Informed consent in oncology clinical trials: A Brown University Oncology Research Group prospective cross-sectional pilot study.

Schumacher Andrew A Sikov William M WM Quesenberry Matthew I MI Safran Howard H Khurshid Humera H Mitchell Kristen M KM Olszewski Adam J AJ Olszewski Adam J AJ

PloS one 20170224 2

<h4>Background</h4>Informed consent forms (ICFs) for oncology clinical trials have grown increasingly longer and more complex. We evaluated objective understanding of critical components of informed consent among patients enrolling in contemporary trials of conventional or novel biologic/targeted therapies.<h4>Methods</h4>We evaluated ICFs for cancer clinical trials for length and readability, and patients registered on those studies were asked to complete a validated 14-question survey assessin ...[more]

PMID: 28235011

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEarly phase cancer clinical trials have become increasingly complicated in terms of patient selection and trial procedures-this is reflected in the increasing length of participant information sheets (PIS). Informed consent for early phase clinical trials has been contentious due to the potential ethical issues associated with performing experimental research on a terminally ill population which has exhausted standard treatment options. Empirical studies have demonstrated significant gaps in patient understanding regarding the nature and intent of these trials. This study aims to test whether enhanced informed consent for patient education can improve patient scores on a validated questionnaire testing clinical trial comprehension.Methods and analysisThis is a randomised controlled trial that will allocate patients who are eligible to participate in one of four investigator-initiated clinical trials at the Royal Marsden Drug Development Unit to either a standard arm or an experimental arm, stratified by age and educational level. The standard arm will involve the full length trial PIS, followed by electronic or paper administration of the Quality of Informed Consent Questionnaire Parts A and B (QuIC-A and QuIC-B). The experimental arm will involve the full length trial PIS, exposure to a two-page study aid and 10 online educational videos, followed by administration of the QuIC-A and QuIC-B. The primary endpoint will be the difference (using a one-sided two-sample t-test) in the QuIC-A score, which measures objective understanding, between the standard and experimental arm. Accrual target is at least 17 patients per arm to detect an 8 point difference (80% power, alpha 0.05).Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was granted by the National Health Service Health Research Authority on 15 June 2020-IRAS Project ID 277065, Protocol Number CCR5165, REC Reference 20/EE/0155. Results will be disseminated via publication in a relevant journal.Trial registration numberNCT04407676; Pre-results.

Project description:Importance. Oncology trials often entail high-stakes interventions where potential for morbidity and fatal side effects, and for life-prolongation or cure, intensify bioethical issues surrounding informed consent. These challenges are compounded in multistage randomized trials, which are prevalent in oncology. Objective. We sought to elucidate the major barriers to informed consent in high-stakes oncology trials in general and the best consent practices for multistage randomized trials. Evidence Review. We queried PubMed for original studies published from January 1, 1990, to April 5, 2018, that focused on readability, quality, complexity or length of consent documents, motivation and sickness level of participants, or interventions and enhancements that influence informed consent for high-stakes oncologic interventions. Exclusion criteria included articles focused on populations outside industrialized countries, minors or other vulnerable populations, physician preferences, cancer screening and prevention, or recruitment strategies. Additional articles were identified through comprehensive bibliographic review. Findings. Twenty-seven articles were retained; 19 enrolled participants and 8 examined samples of consent documents. Methodologic quality was variable. This body of literature identified certain challenges that can be readily remedied. For example, the average length of the consent forms has increased 10-fold from 1987 to 2010, and patient understanding was shown to be inversely proportional to page count; shortening forms, or providing a concise summary as mandated by the revised Common Rule, might help. However, barriers to understanding that stem from deeply ingrained and flawed sociocultural perceptions of medical research seem more difficult to surmount. Although no studies specifically addressed problems posed by multiple sequential randomizations (such as change in risk-benefit ratio due to time-varying treatment responses or organ toxicities), the findings are likely applicable and especially relevant in that context. Concrete suggestions for improvement are proposed.

Project description:BackgroundProgress in therapeutic research is slowed by the regulatory burden of clinical trials, which provide the best evidence for guiding treatment. There is a long delay from evidence generation to adoption, highlighting the need for designs that link evidence generation to implementation.ObjectiveTo identify clinical trial designs that confer minimal risk above that inherent in clinical care, to obviate the need for cumbersome consenting processes to enrol patients in prospective clinical research studies. These designs extend the scope of the Learning Healthcare System, a framework for leveraging retrospective 'big data' to advance clinical research, to include data collected from prospective controlled trials.SummaryPragmatic trials may use simplified eligibility criteria, unblinded interventions and objective outcome measures that can all be monitored through the electronic health records (EHR), to reduce costs and speed study conduct. Most pragmatic trials continue to suffer from substantial regulatory burden. Written consent to participate in research can be waived only if the research produces minimal risk above what is encountered in everyday life. However, the 'consent' processes for prescribing Federal Drug Administration-approved medications in clinical medicine are informal, even when they involve decisions of uncertain benefit and higher levels of risk. We propose that trial designs that mimic clinical decision-making in areas of uncertainty (clinical equipoise) and in which no data are generated outside of usual care (ideally by EHR embedding) confer minimal additional risk. Trial designs meeting this standard could, therefore, be conducted with minimal documentation of consent, even when interventions contain different risks. To align with risk encountered in clinical practice, allocation to treatment arms should change (adaptive randomisation) as data are collected and analysed. Embedding of informatics tools into the EHR has the additional benefit that, as adaptive randomisation progresses, evidence-generation transitions into implementation via decision-support tools-the ultimate realisation of the Learning Healthcare System.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of research ethics review and informed consent), to determine whether the adequacy of reporting has improved over time, and to identify characteristics of cluster randomised trials associated with reporting of ethics practices.DesignReview of a random sample of published cluster randomised trials from an electronic search in Medline.SettingCluster randomised trials in health research published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. Study sample 300 cluster randomised trials published in 150 journals.Results77 (26%, 95% confidence interval 21% to 31%) trials failed to report ethics review. The proportion reporting ethics review increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report ethics review than were trials that used routine data sources only (79% (n=151) v 55% (23); P=0.008). Trials that accounted for clustering in the design and analysis were more likely to report ethics review. The median impact factor of the journal of publication was higher for trials that reported ethics review (3.4 v 2.3; P<0.001). 93 (31%, 26% to 36%) trials failed to report consent. Reporting of consent increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with interventions targeting participants at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were trials with interventions targeting the cluster level (87% (90) v 48% (41); P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were those that used routine data sources only (78% (146) v 29% (11); P<0.001).ConclusionsReporting of research ethics protections in cluster randomised trials is inadequate. In addition to research ethics approval, authors should report whether informed consent was sought, from whom consent was sought, and what consent was for.

Dataset Information

Informed consent in oncology clinical trials: A Brown University Oncology Research Group prospective cross-sectional pilot study.

Publications

Informed consent in oncology clinical trials: A Brown University Oncology Research Group prospective cross-sectional pilot study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets