PURPOSE: Slow accrual to cancer clinical trials impedes the progress of effective new cancer treatments. Poor physician-patient communication has been identified as a key contributor to low trial accrual. Question prompt lists (QPLs) have demonstrated a significant promise in facilitating communication in general, surgical, and palliative oncology settings. These simple patient interventions have not been tested in the oncology clinical trial setting. We aimed to develop a targeted QPL for clinical trials (QPL-CT). METHOD: Lung, breast, and prostate cancer patients who either had (trial experienced) or had not (trial naive) participated in a clinical trial were invited to join focus groups to help develop and explore the acceptability of a QPL-CT. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. A research team, including a qualitative data expert, analyzed these data to explore patients' decision-making processes and views about the utility of the QPL-CT prompt to aid in trial decision making. RESULTS: Decision making was influenced by the outcome of patients' comparative assessment of perceived risks versus benefits of a trial, and the level of trust patients had in their doctors' recommendation about the trial. Severity of a patient's disease influenced trial decision making only for trial-naive patients. CONCLUSION: Although patients were likely to prefer a paternalistic decision-making style, they expressed valuation of the QPL as an aid to decision making. QPL-CT utility extended beyond the actual consultation to include roles both before and after the clinical trial discussion.
PURPOSE: Slow accrual to cancer clinical trials impedes the progress of effective new cancer treatments. Poor physician-patient communication has been identified as a key contributor to low trial accrual. Question prompt lists (QPLs) have demonstrated a significant promise in facilitating communication in general, surgical, and palliative oncology settings. These simple patient interventions have not been tested in the oncology clinical trial setting. We aimed to develop a targeted QPL for clinical trials (QPL-CT). METHOD: Lung, breast, and prostate cancerpatients who either had (trial experienced) or had not (trial naive) participated in a clinical trial were invited to join focus groups to help develop and explore the acceptability of a QPL-CT. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. A research team, including a qualitative data expert, analyzed these data to explore patients' decision-making processes and views about the utility of the QPL-CT prompt to aid in trial decision making. RESULTS: Decision making was influenced by the outcome of patients' comparative assessment of perceived risks versus benefits of a trial, and the level of trust patients had in their doctors' recommendation about the trial. Severity of a patient's disease influenced trial decision making only for trial-naive patients. CONCLUSION: Although patients were likely to prefer a paternalistic decision-making style, they expressed valuation of the QPL as an aid to decision making. QPL-CT utility extended beyond the actual consultation to include roles both before and after the clinical trial discussion.
Authors: P N Lara; R Higdon; N Lim; K Kwan; M Tanaka; D H Lau; T Wun; J Welborn; F J Meyers; S Christensen; R O'Donnell; C Richman; S A Scudder; J Tuscano; D R Gandara; K S Lam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Linda K Parreco; Rhonda W DeJoice; Holly A Massett; Rose Mary Padberg; Sona S Thakkar Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Andrea M Denicoff; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Stephen S Grubbs; Suanna S Bruinooge; Robert L Comis; Peggy Devine; David M Dilts; Michelle E Duff; Jean G Ford; Steven Joffe; Lidia Schapira; Kevin P Weinfurt; Margo Michaels; Derek Raghavan; Ellen S Richmond; Robin Zon; Terrance L Albrecht; Michael A Bookman; Afshin Dowlati; Rebecca A Enos; Mona N Fouad; Marjorie Good; William J Hicks; Patrick J Loehrer; Alan P Lyss; Steven N Wolff; Debra M Wujcik; Neal J Meropol Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.840
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
Authors: Kerry Woolfall; Valerie Shilling; Helen Hickey; Rosalind L Smyth; Emma Sowden; Paula R Williamson; Bridget Young Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 3.240