Dataset Information

Are cancer patients better off if they participate in clinical trials? A mixed methods study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Research and cancer care are closely intertwined; however, it is not clear whether physicians and nurses believe that clinical trials offer the best treatment for patients and, if so, whether this belief is justified. The aim of this study was therefore: (i) to explore how physicians and nurses perceive the benefits of clinical trial participation compared with standard care and (ii) whether it is justified to claim that clinical trial participation improves outcomes for cancer patients. METHODS:A mixed methods approach was used employing semi-structured interviews with 57 physicians and nurses in oncology and haematology and a literature review of the evidence for trial superiority, i.e. the idea that receiving treatment in a clinical trial leads to a better outcome compared with standard care. Inductive thematic analysis was used to examine the interview data. A literature review comprising nine articles was conducted according to a conceptual framework developed by Peppercorn et al. and evaluated recent evidence on trial superiority. RESULTS:Our findings show that many physicians and nurses make claims supporting trial superiority, however very little evidence is available in the literature comparing outcomes for trial participants and non-participants that supports their assertions. CONCLUSIONS:Despite the recent rapid development and use of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, we find no support for trial participation to provide better outcomes for cancer patients than standard care. Hence, our present results are in line with previous results from Peppercorn et al. A weaker version of the superiority claim is that even if a trial does not bring about a direct positive effect, it brings about indirect positive effects. However, as the value of such indirect effects is dependent on the individual's specific circumstances and preferences, their existence cannot establish the general claim that treatment in trials is superior. Belief in trial superiority is therefore unfounded. Hence, if such beliefs are communicated to patients in a trial recruitment context, it would provide misleading information. Instead emphasis should be on patients volunteering to give an altruistic contribution to the furthering of knowledge and to the potential benefit of future patients.

SUBMITTER: Engelbak Nielsen Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7206768 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are cancer patients better off if they participate in clinical trials? A mixed methods study.

Engelbak Nielsen Zandra Z Eriksson Stefan S Schram Harsløf Laurine Bente LB Petri Suzanne S Helgesson Gert G Mangset Margrete M Godskesen Tove E TE

BMC cancer 20200508 1

<h4>Background</h4>Research and cancer care are closely intertwined; however, it is not clear whether physicians and nurses believe that clinical trials offer the best treatment for patients and, if so, whether this belief is justified. The aim of this study was therefore: (i) to explore how physicians and nurses perceive the benefits of clinical trial participation compared with standard care and (ii) whether it is justified to claim that clinical trial participation improves outcomes for cance ...[more]

PMID: 32384883

Similar Datasets

Project description:Managed cancer networks are widely promoted in national cancer control programs as an organizational form that enables integrated care as well as enhanced patient outcomes. While national programs are set by policy-makers, the detailed implementation of networks is delegated at the service delivery and institutional levels. It is likely that the capacity to ensure more integrated cancer services requires multi-level governance processes responsive to the strengths and limitations of the contexts and capable of supporting network-based working. Based on an empirical case, this study aims to analyze the implementation of a mandated cancer network, focusing on governance and health services integration as core concepts in the study.This nested multi-case study uses mixed methods to explore the implementation of a mandated cancer network in Quebec, a province of Canada. The case is the National Cancer Network (NCN) subdivided into three micro-cases, each defined by the geographic territory of a health and social services region. For each region, two local health services centers (LHSCs) are selected based on their differences with respect to determining characteristics. Qualitative data will be collected from various sources using three strategies: review of documents, focus groups, and semi-directed interviews with stakeholders. The qualitative data will be supplemented with a survey that will measure the degree of integration as a proxy for implementation of the NCN. A score will be constructed, and then triangulated with the qualitative data, which will have been subjected to content analysis. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods data will be interpreted within and across cases in order to identify governance patterns similarities and differences and degree of integration in contexts.This study is designed to inform decision-making to develop more effective network implementation strategies by thoroughly describing multi-level governance processes of a sample of settings that provide cancer services. Although the study focuses on the implementation of a cancer network in Quebec, the rich descriptions of multiple nested cases will generate data with a degree of generalizability for health-care systems in developed countries.

Project description:BackgroundThe rationale for centre selection in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often unclear but may have important implications for the generalisability of trial results. The aims of this study were to evaluate the factors which currently influence centre selection in RCTs and consider how generalisability considerations inform current and optimal practice.Methods and findingsMixed methods approach consisting of a systematic review and meta-summary of centre selection criteria reported in RCT protocols funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) initiated between January 2005-January 2012; and an online survey on the topic of current and optimal centre selection, distributed to professionals in the 48 UK Clinical Trials Units and 10 NIHR Research Design Services. The survey design was informed by the systematic review and by two focus groups conducted with trialists at the Birmingham Centre for Clinical Trials. 129 trial protocols were included in the systematic review, with a total target sample size in excess of 317,000 participants. The meta-summary identified 53 unique centre selection criteria. 78 protocols (60%) provided at least one criterion for centre selection, but only 31 (24%) protocols explicitly acknowledged generalisability. This is consistent with the survey findings (n = 70), where less than a third of participants reported generalisability as a key driver of centre selection in current practice. This contrasts with trialists' views on optimal practice, where generalisability in terms of clinical practice, population characteristics and economic results were prime considerations for 60% (n = 42), 57% (n = 40) and 46% (n = 32) of respondents, respectively.ConclusionsCentres are rarely enrolled in RCTs with an explicit view to external validity, although trialists acknowledge that incorporating generalisability in centre selection should ideally be more prominent. There is a need to operationalize 'generalisability' and incorporate it at the design stage of RCTs so that results are readily transferable to 'real world' practice.

Project description:BackgroundThe trial protocol is the most important document for clinical trials and describes not only the design and methodology of a study, but also all practical aspects. The suitability of the protocol has a direct impact on the execution and results of the trial. However, suitability is rarely addressed in trial practice and research. The aim of our study was to investigate protocol suitability and to identify suitability-enhancing measures for trials in sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsWe used an exploratory mixed methods design. First, we interviewed 36 trial staff at different organisational levels in Ghana, Burkina Faso and Senegal. Second, we conducted an online survey among trial staff in sub-Saharan Africa to investigate trial protocol suitability based on the main themes distilled from the interviews.ResultsProtocol suitability surfaced as a prominent topic in interviews with trial staff, critiqued for its lack of clarity, implementability and adaptation to trial participants as well as to the workforce and infrastructure available. Both qualitative and quantitative investigations identified local site staff involvement in protocol development as the most helpful mean of increasing protocol suitability. Careful assessment of the local context, capacity and cultures, and ensuring that staff understand the protocol were also cited as helpful measures.ConclusionsOur data suggests that protocol suitability can be increased by discussing and reviewing the protocol with trial staff in advance. Involving operationally experienced staff would be most useful. For multicentre trials, we suggest that at least one trial staff member from each of the sites with the highest expected recruitment rates be involved in developing the protocol. Carefully assessing the context prior to study start is indispensable to ensuring protocol suitability and should particularly focus on the workforce and infrastructure available, as well as the needs and availability of trial participants. To allow for protocol suitability enhancing measures, planners must allocate enough time for trial preparation and solicit feedback and information on context at an early stage. Such prospective planning would increase implementability, efficiency and quality of trials in the long run.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited research on healthy volunteers' perceptions of the risks of Phase I clinical trials. In order to contribute empirically to long-standing ethical concerns about healthy volunteers' involvement in drug development, it is crucial to assess how these participants understand trial risks. The objectives of this study were to investigate (1) participants' views of the overall risks of Phase I trials, (2) their views of the risk of personally being harmed in a trial, and (3) how risk perceptions vary across participants' clinical trial history and sociodemographic characteristics.Methods and findingsWe qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed semi-structured interviews conducted with 178 healthy volunteers who had participated in a diverse range of Phase I trials in the United States. Participants had collective experience in a reported 1,948 Phase I trials (mean = 10.9; median = 5), and they were interviewed as part of a longitudinal study of healthy volunteers' risk perceptions, their trial enrollment decisions, and their routine health behaviors. Participants' qualitative responses were coded, analyzed, and subsequently quantified in order to assess correlations between their risk perceptions and demographics, such as their race/ethnicity, gender, age, educational attainment, employment status, and household income. We found that healthy volunteers often viewed the overall risks of Phase I trials differently than their own personal risk of harm. The majority of our participants thought that Phase I trials were medium, high, or extremely high risk (118 of 178), but most nonetheless felt that they were personally safe from harm (97 of 178). We also found that healthy volunteers in their first year of clinical trial participation, racial and ethnic minority participants, and Hispanic participants tended to view the overall trial risks as high (respectively, Jonckheere-Terpstra, -2.433, p = 0.015; Fisher exact test, p = 0.016; Fisher exact test, p = 0.008), but these groups did not differ in regard to their perceptions of personal risk of harm (respectively, chi-squared, 3.578, p = 0.059; chi-squared, 0.845, p = 0.358; chi-squared, 1.667, p = 0.197). The main limitation of our study comes from quantitatively aggregating data from in-depth interviews, which required the research team to interpret participants' nonstandardized risk narratives.ConclusionsOur study demonstrates that healthy volunteers are generally aware of and reflective about Phase I trial risks. The discrepancy in healthy volunteers' views of overall and personal risk sheds light on why healthy volunteers might continue to enroll in clinical trials, even when they view trials on the whole as risky.

Project description:BackgroundWhile patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials is beneficial and mandated by some funders, formal guidance on how to implement PPI is limited and challenges have been reported. We aimed to investigate how PPI is approached within a UK Clinical Trials Unit (CTU)'s portfolio of randomised controlled trials, perceived barriers to/facilitators of its successful implementation, and perspectives on the CTU's role in PPI.MethodsA mixed-methods study design, involving (1) an online survey of 26 trial managers (TMs) and (2) Interviews with Trial Management Group members and public contributors from 8 case-study trials. Quantitative survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics and interview transcripts analysed thematically. Two public contributors advised throughout and are co-authors.Results(1) 21 TMs completed the survey; (2) 19 in-depth interviews were conducted with public contributors (n=8), TMs (n=5), chief investigators (n=3), PPI coordinators (n=2) and a researcher. 15/21 TMs surveyed reported that a public contributor was on the trial team, and 5 used another PPI method. 12/21 TMs reported that public contributors were paid (range £10-50/h). 5 TMs reported that training was provided for public contributors and few staff members had received any formal PPI training. The most commonly reported tasks undertaken by public contributors were the review of participant-facing materials/study documents and advising on recruitment/retention strategies. Public contributors wanted and valued feedback on changes made due to their input, but it was not always provided. Barriers to successful PPI included recruitment challenges, group dynamics, maintaining professional boundaries, negative attitudes to PPI amongst some researchers, a lack of continuity of trial staff, and the academic environment. Successful PPI required early and explicit planning, sharing of power and ownership of the trial with public contributors, building and maintaining relationships, and joint understanding and clarity about expectations/roles. CTUs have an important role to play in supporting recruitment, signposting and coordinating PPI.ConclusionsWhile highly valuable, PPI in trials is currently variable. PPI representatives are recruited informally, may not be provided with any training and are paid inconsistently across trials. Study findings can help optimise PPI in trials and ensure researchers and public contributors are adequately supported.

Dataset Information

Are cancer patients better off if they participate in clinical trials? A mixed methods study.

Publications

Are cancer patients better off if they participate in clinical trials? A mixed methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets