BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians report difficulties with the process of informed consent to clinical trials and audiotape audits show that critical information is often omitted or poorly presented. Decision aids (DAs) may assist in improving consent. AIMS: This study piloted a DA booklet for a high priority breast cancer prevention trial, IBIS-II DCIS, which compares the efficacy of an aromatase inhibitor (anastrozole) with tamoxifen in women who have had surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHOD:Thirty-one Australian women participating in the IBIS-I breast cancer prevention trial and who are currently in follow-up agreed to read the IBIS-II DCIS participant information sheet and the DCIS DA booklet, complete a set of standardized questionnaires, and provide feedback on the DA via a semi-structured phone interview. RESULTS: Women found the DA helpful in deciding about trial participation, reporting that it aided their understanding over and above the approved IBIS-II DCIS participant information sheet and was not anxiety provoking. Women's understanding of the rationale and methods of clinical trials and the IBIS-II DCIS trial was very good; with more than 80% of items answered correctly. The only areas that were not understood well were the concepts of randomization and blinding. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the DA will be acceptable to and valued by potential participants in the IBIS-II DCIS study. The revised DA is currently being evaluated prospectively in a randomized controlled trial. If successful, such DAs could transform the consent process to large clinical trials and may also reduce dropout rates.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Patients and clinicians report difficulties with the process of informed consent to clinical trials and audiotape audits show that critical information is often omitted or poorly presented. Decision aids (DAs) may assist in improving consent. AIMS: This study piloted a DA booklet for a high priority breast cancer prevention trial, IBIS-II DCIS, which compares the efficacy of an aromatase inhibitor (anastrozole) with tamoxifen in women who have had surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHOD: Thirty-one Australian women participating in the IBIS-I breast cancer prevention trial and who are currently in follow-up agreed to read the IBIS-II DCIS participant information sheet and the DCIS DA booklet, complete a set of standardized questionnaires, and provide feedback on the DA via a semi-structured phone interview. RESULTS:Women found the DA helpful in deciding about trial participation, reporting that it aided their understanding over and above the approved IBIS-II DCIS participant information sheet and was not anxiety provoking. Women's understanding of the rationale and methods of clinical trials and the IBIS-II DCIS trial was very good; with more than 80% of items answered correctly. The only areas that were not understood well were the concepts of randomization and blinding. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the DA will be acceptable to and valued by potential participants in the IBIS-II DCIS study. The revised DA is currently being evaluated prospectively in a randomized controlled trial. If successful, such DAs could transform the consent process to large clinical trials and may also reduce dropout rates.
Authors: P N Butow; M Solomon; J M Young; T Whelan; G Salkeld; K Wilson; J D Harrison; G Hruby; O Mansour; N Kennedy; M H N Tattersall Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: J Cuzick; J Forbes; R Edwards; M Baum; S Cawthorn; A Coates; A Hamed; A Howell; T Powles Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-09-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Angel H Y Au; Wendy W T Lam; Miranda C M Chan; Amy Y M Or; Ava Kwong; Dacita Suen; Annie L Wong; Ilona Juraskova; Teresa W T Wong; Richard Fielding Journal: Health Expect Date: 2011-01-11 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Simone E De Morgan; Phyllis N Butow; Elizabeth A Lobb; Melanie A Price; Caroline Nehill Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-11-19 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: S M Miller; S V Hudson; B L Egleston; S Manne; J S Buzaglo; K Devarajan; L Fleisher; J Millard; N Solarino; J Trinastic; N J Meropol Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Bettina F Drake; Katherine M Brown; Sarah Gehlert; Leslie E Wolf; Joann Seo; Hannah Perkins; Melody S Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Richard F Brown; Debbie L Cadet; Robert H Houlihan; Maria D Thomson; Emily C Pratt; Amy Sullivan; Laura A Siminoff Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.840