Dataset Information

Discussing randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy: evaluation of a Cancer Research UK training programme.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate a training intervention aimed at improving healthcare professionals' communication with cancer patients about randomised clinical trials.

Design

Before and after evaluation of training programme.

Setting

Members of the National Cancer Research Network, Scottish Trials Network, and the Welsh Cancer Trials Network.

Participants

101 healthcare professionals (33 clinicians and 68 research nurses).

Intervention

Four modules delivered by a trained facilitator using videotapes and interactive exercises to cover general issues about discussing randomised clinical trials with patients, problems specific to adjuvant trials, trials with palliation as the goal, and trials where patients had a strong preference for one treatment arm.

Main outcome measures

Before and after the intervention, participants were videotaped discussing a trial with an actor portraying a patient. These consultations were assessed for presence of information required by good clinical practice guidelines. The actor patients gave an assessment after each interview. Participants reported their self confidence about key aspects of trial discussion.

Results

Analysis of the videotaped consultations showed that, after intervention, significantly more participants displayed key communication behaviours such as explaining randomisation (69 v 81, odds ratio 2.33, P = 0.033), checking patients' understanding (11 v 31, odds ratio 3.22, P = 0.002), and discussing standard treatment (73 v 88, odds ratio 4.75, P = 0.005) and side effects (69 v 85, odds ratio 3.29, P = 0.006). Participants' self confidence increased significantly (P < 0.001) across all areas. Actor patients' ratings of participants' communication showed significant improvements for 12/15 key items.

Conclusion

This intensive 8 hour intervention significantly improved participants' confidence and competence when communicating about randomised clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Jenkins V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC549112 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Discussing randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy: evaluation of a Cancer Research UK training programme.

Jenkins V V Fallowfield L L Solis-Trapala I I Langridge C C Farewell V V

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20050210 7488

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate a training intervention aimed at improving healthcare professionals' communication with cancer patients about randomised clinical trials.<h4>Design</h4>Before and after evaluation of training programme.<h4>Setting</h4>Members of the National Cancer Research Network, Scottish Trials Network, and the Welsh Cancer Trials Network.<h4>Participants</h4>101 healthcare professionals (33 clinicians and 68 research nurses).<h4>Intervention</h4>Four modules delivered by a trai ...[more]

PMID: 15705666

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo design, deliver and evaluate a programme of training workshops for biomedical researchers aimed at building confidence and skills in actively involving patients and the public (PPI) in research.DesignA bespoke programme of training workshops in PPI aimed at researchers.SettingA large National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre in London and several partner organisations.Participants721 scientists, clinicians and research managers attending dedicated training in PPI at a major London NHS (National Health Service)-university partnership.InterventionsA programme of 72 training workshops, designed to build practical skills and confidence for researchers working with patients and the public in research, was delivered at a major research-active NHS:university partnership. An iterative approach was taken to the programme, with the content of the workshops continually reviewed and refreshed to respond to the needs of researchers. Surveys before, immediately following and 6 months after training investigated the impact on researchers' confidence and skills in PPI work, and the kind of PPI they subsequently carried out.ResultsTraining brought about immediate marked increases in researchers' self-reported confidence to carry out PPI activities within their research, and in their knowledge of good practice. The evaluation indicates that workshop attendees were more likely to involve patients in their research following training. Researchers tended to involve patients and the public in a range of areas, including input to study design and patient information, in particular.ConclusionsWhen positioned within a broader organisational strategy for PPI in research, such training has an important role to play in progressing PPI in a major research partnership. Training appeared to provide the confidence needed to carry out PPI which enabled further development of confidence and skills. Involving researchers who have attended the training in the ongoing development of the programme and bringing in patients to the training programme are key next steps.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious research reviewed treatment success and whether the collective uncertainty principle is met in RCTs in the US National Cancer Institute portfolio. This paper classifies clinical trials funded by the UK HTA programme by results using the method applied to the US Cancer Institute trials, and compares the two portfolios.MethodsData on all completed randomised controlled trials funded by the HTA programme 1993-2008 were extracted. Each trial's primary results was classified into six categories; 1) statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 2) statistically significant in favour of the control treatment 3) true negative, 4) truly inconclusive, 5) inconclusive in favour of new treatment or 6) inconclusive in favour of control treatment. Trials were classified by comparing the 95% confidence interval for the difference in primary outcome to the difference specified in the sample size calculation. The results were compared with Djulbegovic's analysis of NCI trials.ResultsData from 51 superiority trials were included, involving over 48,000 participants and a range of diseases and interventions. 85 primary comparisons were available because some trials had more than two randomised arms or had several primary outcomes. The new treatment had superior results (whether significant or not) in 61% of the comparisons (52/85 95% CI 49.9% to 71.6%). The results were conclusive in 46% of the comparisons (19% statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 5% statistically significant in favour of the control and 22% true negative). The results were classified as truly inconclusive (i.e. failed to answer the question asked) for 24% of comparisons (20/85). HTA trials included fewer truly inconclusive and statistically significant results and more results rated as true negative than NCI trials.ConclusionsThe pattern of results in HTA trials is similar to that of the National Cancer Institute portfolio. Differences that existed were plausible given the differences in the types of trials -HTA trials are more pragmatic. The results indicate HTA trials are compatible with equipoise. This classification usefully summarises the results from clinical trials and enables comparisons of different portfolios of trials.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the completeness of reporting of sample size determinations in unpublished research protocols and to develop guidance for research ethics committees and for statisticians advising these committees.DesignReview of original research protocols.Study selectionUnpublished research protocols for phase IIb, III, and IV randomised clinical trials of investigational medicinal products submitted to research ethics committees in the United Kingdom during 1 January to 31 December 2009.Main outcome measuresCompleteness of reporting of the sample size determination, including the justification of design assumptions, and disagreement between reported and recalculated sample size.Results446 study protocols were reviewed. Of these, 190 (43%) justified the treatment effect and 213 (48%) justified the population variability or survival experience. Only 55 (12%) discussed the clinical importance of the treatment effect sought. Few protocols provided a reasoned explanation as to why the design assumptions were plausible for the planned study. Sensitivity analyses investigating how the sample size changed under different design assumptions were lacking; six (1%) protocols included a re-estimation of the sample size in the study design. Overall, 188 (42%) protocols reported all of the information to accurately recalculate the sample size; the assumed withdrawal or dropout rate was not given in 177 (40%) studies. Only 134 of the 446 (30%) sample size calculations could be accurately reproduced. Study size tended to be over-estimated rather than under-estimated. Studies with non-commercial sponsors justified the design assumptions used in the calculation more often than studies with commercial sponsors but less often reported all the components needed to reproduce the sample size calculation. Sample sizes for studies with non-commercial sponsors were less often reproduced.ConclusionsMost research protocols did not contain sufficient information to allow the sample size to be reproduced or the plausibility of the design assumptions to be assessed. Greater transparency in the reporting of the determination of the sample size and more focus on study design during the ethical review process would allow deficiencies to be resolved early, before the trial begins. Guidance for research ethics committees and statisticians advising these committees is needed.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:An impactful clinical trial will have real-life benefits for patients and society beyond the academic environment. This study analyses case studies of cancer trials to understand how impact is evidenced for cancer trials and how impact evaluation can be more routinely adopted and improved. METHODS:The United Kingdom (UK) Government allocates research funding to higher-education institutions based on an assessment of the institutions' previous research efforts, in an exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In addition to each institution's journal publications and research environment, for the first time in 2014, allocation of funding was also dependent on an evaluation of the wider, societal impact of research conducted. In the REF2014, impact assessment was performed by evaluation of impact case studies. In this study, case studies (n?=?6637) submitted by institutions for the REF2014 were accessed and those focussing on cancer trials were identified. Manual content analysis was then used to assess the characteristics of the cancer trials discussed in the case studies, the impact described and the methods used by institutions to demonstrate impact. RESULTS:Forty-six case studies describing 106 individual cancer trials were identified. The majority were phase III randomised controlled trials and those recruiting patients with breast cancer. A list of indicators of cancer trial impact was generated using the previous literature and developed inductively using these case studies. The most common impact from a cancer trial identified in the case studies was on policy, in particular citation of trial findings in clinical guidelines. Impact on health outcomes and the economy were less frequent and health outcomes were often predicted rather than evidenced. There were few descriptions identified of trialists making efforts to maximise trial impact. DISCUSSION:Cancer trial impact narratives for the next REF assessment exercise in 2021 can be improved by evidencing actual rather than predicted Impact, with a clearer identification of the beneficiaries of cancer trials and the processes through which trial results are used. Clarification of the individuals responsible for performing impact evaluations of cancer trials and the provision of resources to do so needs to be addressed if impact evaluation is to be sustainable.

Dataset Information

Discussing randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy: evaluation of a Cancer Research UK training programme.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Intervention

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Discussing randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy: evaluation of a Cancer Research UK training programme.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets