Clinicians' attitudes towards clinical trials of cancer therapy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ford E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3101903 | biostudies-other | 2011 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:barriers to randomised clinical trial (RCT) recruitment include failure to identify eligible patients, reluctance of staff to approach them and attitudes of some health-care professionals and patients. As part of a larger UK prospective study examining the communication and involvement in RCTs of 22 multidisciplinary teams in Wales, we also assessed the attitudes of patients they treat towards trials.out of 1146 patients attending outpatient departments who were approached, 1146 (93%) completed the seven-item Attitudes to Randomised Trials Questionnaire (ARTQ), probing their general attitudes towards medical research and likely participation in a hypothetical two-arm RCT.randomisation initially deterred many patients from endorsing a willingness to participate. However, if information about the trial logic, voluntary nature and rights to withdraw were provided, together with further treatment details, 83% (886 out of 1066) would potentially participate. Other variables associated with a positive inclination towards participation included previous trial experience (P<0.01), male gender (P<0.01) and younger age, with patients > or =70 years less likely to consider trial entry (P<0.01).the majority of patients were receptive to RCT participation. Many of those initially disinclined because of randomisation would consider joining if given further details that form part of standard GCP consent guidelines. These data show the importance and need for clear communication and information to encourage RCT participation. Evidence-based training courses are available to assist with this.
| S-EPMC3008615 | biostudies-other
Project description:To assess the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of Saudis towards participating in clinical trials (CTs).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.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.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.
| S-EPMC4743978 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Advances in molecular therapeutic approaches in the last decade are translating into the design of non-traditional clinical trials. In order to improve their feasibility, it is important to understand the attitudes of potential participants towards these trials, their motivations to get involved and acceptance of risks. OBJECTIVE:We aimed to better understand the willingness of potential participants to participate in different molecular therapy trials for Huntington's disease (HD) based on their clinical and genetic status, trial design and goals of the treatment. METHODS:An anonymous survey was distributed through the Huntington's Disease Society of America (HDSA) on-line portal/website. Various hypothetical scenarios were presented followed by a survey consistent of Likert scale responses ascertaining willingness to participate, collecting demographic, clinical and genetic information. RESULTS:There were a total of 87 responses, including patients diagnosed with HD, pre-manifesting mutation carriers and asymptomatic participants at risk. The majority of participants indicated they were very likely or likely to participate in clinical trials independent of study design or goals of the therapy, with a more favorable view in premanifesting mutation carriers. However, more invasive procedures and trials including placebo were less favorably viewed across all diagnostic groups. CONCLUSIONS:In summary, most individuals in the HD community would consider participation in novel molecular therapy trials, but study design and goals could impact patient recruitment. This data can be used to inform the recruitment and consent process into clinical trials and to address common concerns by potential participants.
| S-EPMC6398921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used in cancer care to monitor patients' disease-related symptoms and functional status. However, successful implementation of such instruments is only possible if clinical staff are convinced of the clinical benefits. It is therefore crucial to investigate the attitudes of clinical staff to PROs in routine cancer care.MethodsSemi-structured, guideline-based interviews were held with 12 clinicians working in certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany who are taking part in an observational study on PROs (five surgeons, two oncologists, one psycho-oncologist, two oncological care nurses, one stoma therapist, and one physician assistant) in order to investigate firstly, how clinicians describe PRO instruments ("wording"); and secondly, the clinicians' general attitude toward PROs. A qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz was performed.ResultsThe wording used to describe PROs was not consistent. Statements on attitudes toward PROs were very heterogeneous and were therefore categorized into "(rather) positive" and "(rather) negative." The principal advantages of PROs mentioned by participants included broader, structured knowledge about patients and treatment, as well as relevance for patients. Subcategories for (rather) negative attitudes included statements expressing doubts about the questionnaires and "no need for PROs."DiscussionThe clinicians participating mainly expressed fairly positive attitudes toward PROs. However, they had little knowledge about PROs in general and the interviews therefore mainly reflect their expectations and assumptions about them. These initial impressions may be regarded as providing a basis for future implementation strategies and for training of clinicians on how to use PROs in routine cancer care.
| S-EPMC8056693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPoint-of-care blood tests are becoming increasingly available and could replace current venipuncture and laboratory testing for many commonly used tests. However, at present very few have been implemented in most primary care settings. Understanding the attitudes of primary care clinicians towards these tests may help to identify the barriers and facilitators to their wider adoption. We aimed to systematically review qualitative studies of primary care clinicians' attitudes to point-of-care blood tests.MethodsWe systematically searched Medline, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO and CINAHL for qualitative studies of primary care clinicians' attitudes towards point-of-care blood tests in high income countries. We conducted a thematic synthesis of included studies.ResultsOur search identified seven studies, including around two hundred participants from Europe and Australia. The synthesis generated three main themes: the impact of point-of-care testing on decision-making, diagnosis and treatment; impact on clinical practice more broadly; and impact on patient-clinician relationships and perceived patient experience. Primary care clinicians believed point-of-care testing improved diagnostic certainty, targeting of treatment, self-management of chronic conditions, and clinician-patient communication and relationships. There were concerns about test accuracy, over-reliance on tests, undermining of clinical skills, cost, and limited usefulness.ConclusionsWe identified several perceived benefits and barriers regarding point-of-care tests in primary care. These imply that if point-of-care tests are to become more widely adopted, primary care clinicians require evidence of their accuracy, rigorous testing of the impact of introduction on patient pathways and clinical practice, and consideration of test funding.
| S-EPMC3751354 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Both malignant tumor growth and metastasis are dependent upon angiogenesis, a process of new blood vessel formation. Inhibition of this process by specific inhibitors might be able to control tumor growth and metastasis. Therefore, antiangiogenesis thereapy is considered a promising strategy and being studied worldwide. A wide variety of angiogenesis inhibitors have been identified and some of them are under clinical trials in the advanced patients with cancer including gastric cancer. This review summarizes the development and progress of angiogenesis inhibitors in recent decades, and discusses the future direction of antiangiogenesis research, and the potential antiangiogenic agents which are most likely to be translated into standard treatment for gastrointestinal cancer patients either alone or combined with other therapies.
| S-EPMC5154210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary mitochondrial diseases represent some of the most common and severe inherited metabolic disorders, affecting ~1 in 4,300 live births. The clinical and molecular diversity typified by mitochondrial diseases has contributed to the lack of licensed disease-modifying therapies available. Management for the majority of patients is primarily supportive. The failure of clinical trials in mitochondrial diseases partly relates to the inefficacy of the compounds studied. However, it is also likely to be a consequence of the significant challenges faced by clinicians and researchers when designing trials for these disorders, which have historically been hampered by a lack of natural history data, biomarkers and outcome measures to detect a treatment effect. Encouragingly, over the past decade there have been significant advances in therapy development for mitochondrial diseases, with many small molecules now transitioning from preclinical to early phase human interventional studies. In this review, we present the treatments and management strategies currently available to people with mitochondrial disease. We evaluate the challenges and potential solutions to trial design and highlight the emerging pharmacological and genetic strategies that are moving from the laboratory to clinical trials for this group of disorders.
| S-EPMC8432143 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTelehealth use including secure messages has rapidly expanded since the COVID-19 pandemic, including for multidisciplinary aspects of cancer care. Recent reports described rapid uptake and various benefits for patients and clinicians, suggesting that telehealth may be in standard use after the pandemic.ObjectiveTo examine attitudes and perceptions of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians toward telehealth and secure messages.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional specialty-specific survey (ie, some questions appear only for relevant specialties) among multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians, collected from April 29, 2020, to June 5, 2020. Participants were all 285 clinicians in the fields of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, survivorship, and oncology navigation from all 21 community cancer centers of Kaiser Permanente Northern California.Main outcomes and measuresClinician satisfaction, perceived benefits and challenges of telehealth, perceived quality of telehealth and secure messaging, preferred visit and communication types for different clinical activities, and preferences regarding postpandemic telehealth use.ResultsA total of 202 clinicians (71%) responded (104 of 128 medical oncologists, 34 of 37 radiation oncologists, 16 of 62 breast surgeons, 18 of 28 navigators, and 30 of 30 survivorship experts; 57% (116 of 202) were women; 73% [147 of 202] between ages 36-55 years). Seventy-six percent (n = 154) were satisfied with telehealth without statistically significant variations based on clinician characteristics. In-person visits were thought to promote a strong patient-clinician connection by 99% (n = 137) of respondents compared with 77% (n = 106) for video visits, 43% (n = 59) for telephone, and 14% (n = 19) for secure messages. The most commonly cited benefits of telehealth to clinicians included reduced commute (79%; n = 160), working from home (74%; n = 149), and staying on time (65%; n = 132); the most commonly cited negative factors included internet connection (84%; n = 170) or equipment problems (72%; n = 146), or physical examination needed (64%; n = 131). Most respondents (59%; n = 120) thought that video is adequate to manage the greater part of patient care in general; and most deemed various telehealth modalities suitable for any of the queried types of patient-clinician activities. For some specific activities, less than half of respondents thought that only an in-person visit is acceptable (eg, 49%; n = 66 for end-of-life discussion, 35%; n = 58 for new diagnosis). Most clinicians (82%; n = 166) preferred to maintain or increase use of telehealth after the pandemic.Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians in the COVID-19 era, telehealth was well received and often preferred by most cancer care clinicians, who deemed it appropriate to manage most aspects of cancer care. As telehealth use becomes routine in some cancer care settings, video and telephone visits and use of asynchronous secure messaging with patients in cancer care has clear potential to extend beyond the pandemic period.
| S-EPMC8613601 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEffective, continuous improvement in patient engagement depends on an intimate understanding of public and patient perceptions and experiences in clinical research.ObjectivesTo identify the views of clinical trial participants and nonparticipants and characterize trends in these views over time.Design, setting, and participantsIn this survey study, a questionnaire was administered online from May 8 to July 24, 2017, by the Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation (CISCRP), and findings were compared with previous studies conducted in 2013 and 2015. The 2017 sample included responses from 12 427 individuals from 68 countries and represents a 10% participation rate. Similar to international assessments conducted by the CISCRP and other organizations, this study drew responses from a convenience sample; any adult older than 18 years who received an email or had online access was eligible to participate.Main outcomes and measuresSignificant changes were observed in the perceptions and clinical trial experiences of the public and study volunteers compared with past CISCRP studies.ResultsA total of 12 427 individuals (mean [SD] age, 55 [15] years; 7355 [59.2%] female; 10 085 [81.2%] white), 2194 (17.7%) of whom had participated in previous clinical research studies, responded to the survey in 2017. Findings indicated a belief in the importance of clinical research, but limited understanding of the research process persists. In 2017, a total of 10 506 individuals (84.5%) perceived clinical research to be very important to the discovery and development of new medicines; however, 4079 of 6919 respondents (59.0%) were unable to name a place where studies were conducted. A total of 11 182 respondents (90.0%) believed that clinical research is generally safe; however, 5578 of 12 427 individuals (44.9%) reported that clinical trials are rarely considered as an option when discussing treatments or medications with their physician. Clinical trial participation was perceived as inconvenient and burdensome; in the latest survey, 1075 respondents (49.0%) expressed that their clinical trial participation disrupted their daily routine.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study may provide a foundation from which to build meaningful and effective engagement with the public and patients and revealed roadblocks, including knowledge gaps among the public, limited physician involvement in discussing clinical trials as treatment options, and the inconveniences that patients encounter after they volunteer to participate. These findings may inform patient engagement strategies and tactics and ultimately help accelerate the drug-development process.
| S-EPMC6324429 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based medicine and increasingly rely on front-line clinicians to recruit eligible patients. Clinicians' difficulties with negotiating equipoise is assumed to undermine recruitment, although these issues have not yet been empirically investigated in the context of observable events. We aimed to investigate how clinicians conveyed equipoise during RCT recruitment appointments across six RCTs, with a view to (i) identifying practices that supported or hindered equipoise communication and (ii) exploring how clinicians' reported intentions compared with their actual practices.Methods and findingsSix pragmatic UK-based RCTs were purposefully selected to include several clinical specialties (e.g., oncology, surgery) and types of treatment comparison. The RCTs were all based in secondary-care hospitals (n = 16) around the UK. Clinicians recruiting to the RCTs were interviewed (n = 23) to understand their individual sense of equipoise about the RCT treatments and their intentions for communicating equipoise to patients. Appointments in which these clinicians presented the RCT to trial-eligible patients were audio-recorded (n = 105). The appointments were analysed using thematic and content analysis approaches to identify practices that supported or challenged equipoise communication. A sample of appointments was independently coded by three researchers to optimise reliability in reported findings. Clinicians and patients provided full written consent to be interviewed and have appointments audio-recorded. Interviews revealed that clinicians' sense of equipoise varied: although all were uncertain about which trial treatment was optimal, they expressed different levels of uncertainty, ranging from complete ambivalence to clear beliefs that one treatment was superior. Irrespective of their personal views, all clinicians intended to set their personal biases aside to convey trial treatments neutrally to patients (in accordance with existing evidence). However, equipoise was omitted or compromised in 48/105 (46%) of the recorded appointments. Three commonly recurring practices compromised equipoise communication across the RCTs, irrespective of clinical context. First, equipoise was overridden by clinicians offering treatment recommendations when patients appeared unsure how to proceed or when they asked for the clinician's expert advice. Second, clinicians contradicted equipoise by presenting imbalanced descriptions of trial treatments that conflicted with scientific information stated in the RCT protocols. Third, equipoise was undermined by clinicians disclosing their personal opinions or predictions about trial outcomes, based on their intuition and experience. These broad practices were particularly demonstrated by clinicians who had indicated in interviews that they held less balanced views about trial treatments. A limitation of the study was that clinicians volunteering to take part in the research might have had a particular interest in improving their communication skills. However, the frequency of occurrence of equipoise issues across the RCTs suggests that the findings are likely to be reflective of clinical recruiters' practices more widely.ConclusionsCommunicating equipoise is a challenging process that is easily disrupted. Clinicians' personal views about trial treatments encroached on their ability to convey equipoise to patients. Clinicians should be encouraged to reflect on personal biases and be mindful of the common ways in which these can arise in their discussions with patients. Common pitfalls that recurred irrespective of RCT context indicate opportunities for specific training in communication skills that would be broadly applicable to a wide clinical audience.
| S-EPMC5068710 | biostudies-literature