PURPOSE: To investigate how communication among physicians, patients, and family/companions influences patients' decision making about participation in clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We video recorded 235 outpatient interactions occurring among oncologists, patients, and family/companions (if present) at two comprehensive cancer centers. We combined interaction analysis of the real-time video-recorded observations (collected at Time 1) with patient self-reports (Time 2) to determine how communication about trial offers influenced accrual decisions. RESULTS: Clinical trials were explicitly offered in 20% of the interactions. When offers were made and patients perceived they were offered a trial, 75% of patients assented. Observed messages (at Time 1) directly related to patients' self-reports regarding their decisions (2 weeks later), and how they felt about their decisions and their physicians. Specifically, messages that help build a sense of an alliance (among all parties, including the family/companions), provide support (tangible assistance and reassurance about managing adverse effects), and provide medical content in language that patients and family/companions understand are associated with the patient's decision and decision-making process. CONCLUSION: In two urban, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers, a large percentage of patients are not offered trials. When offered a trial, most patients enroll. The quality and quantity of communication occurring among the oncologist, patient, and family/companion when trials are discussed matter in the patient's decision-making process. These findings can help increase physician awareness of the ways that messages and communication behaviors can be observed and evaluated to improve clinical practice and research.
PURPOSE: To investigate how communication among physicians, patients, and family/companions influences patients' decision making about participation in clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We video recorded 235 outpatient interactions occurring among oncologists, patients, and family/companions (if present) at two comprehensive cancer centers. We combined interaction analysis of the real-time video-recorded observations (collected at Time 1) with patient self-reports (Time 2) to determine how communication about trial offers influenced accrual decisions. RESULTS: Clinical trials were explicitly offered in 20% of the interactions. When offers were made and patients perceived they were offered a trial, 75% of patients assented. Observed messages (at Time 1) directly related to patients' self-reports regarding their decisions (2 weeks later), and how they felt about their decisions and their physicians. Specifically, messages that help build a sense of an alliance (among all parties, including the family/companions), provide support (tangible assistance and reassurance about managing adverse effects), and provide medical content in language that patients and family/companions understand are associated with the patient's decision and decision-making process. CONCLUSION: In two urban, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers, a large percentage of patients are not offered trials. When offered a trial, most patients enroll. The quality and quantity of communication occurring among the oncologist, patient, and family/companion when trials are discussed matter in the patient's decision-making process. These findings can help increase physician awareness of the ways that messages and communication behaviors can be observed and evaluated to improve clinical practice and research.
Authors: A R Giuliano; N Mokuau; C Hughes; G Tortolero-Luna; B Risendal; T E Prewitt; W J McCaskill-Stevens Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Todd L Demmy; Joyce M Yasko; Deborah E Collyar; Mira L Katz; Carol L Krasnov; Margaret J Borwhat; Anne Battershell; Stephen L George Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Warren B Sateren; Edward L Trimble; Jeffrey Abrams; Otis Brawley; Nancy Breen; Leslie Ford; Mary McCabe; Richard Kaplan; Malcolm Smith; Richard Ungerleider; Michaele C Christian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James R Wright; Timothy J Whelan; Susan Schiff; Sacha Dubois; Dauna Crooks; Patricia T Haines; Diane DeRosa; Robin S Roberts; Amiram Gafni; Kathleen Pritchard; Mark N Levine Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Terrance L Albrecht; John C Ruckdeschel; Dawn L Riddle; Christina G Blanchard; Louis A Penner; Michael D Coovert; Gwendolyn Quinn Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2003-05
Authors: Soumya J Niranjan; Raegan W Durant; Jennifer A Wenzel; Elise D Cook; Mona N Fouad; Selwyn M Vickers; Badrinath R Konety; Sarah B Rutland; Zachary R Simoni; Michelle Y Martin Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Margo Michaels; Elisa S Weiss; John A Guidry; Natasha Blakeney; Liz Swords; Brian Gibbs; Samantha Yeun; Bruce Rytkonen; Robert Goodman; S Lisbeth Jarama; Amanda L Greene; Shilpa Patel Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Aisha T Langford; Ken Resnicow; Eileen P Dimond; Andrea M Denicoff; Diane St Germain; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Rebecca A Enos; Angela Carrigan; Kathy Wilkinson; Ronald S Go Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lixin Song; Christina Tyler; Margaret F Clayton; Eleanor Rodgiriguez-Rassi; Latorya Hill; Jinbing Bai; Raj Pruthi; Donald E Bailey Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-09-23