Mia Bergenmar1, Hemming Johansson, Nils Wilking. 1. Department of Oncology and Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. mia.bergenmar@ki.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An informed consent from patients participating in cancer clinical trials is mandatory according to international and national guidelines and laws. Insufficient knowledge and understanding by trial participants have been reported in several studies. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to investigate factors of importance for knowledge and understanding about cancer clinical trials among trial participants. METHODS: All patients consenting to a phase II or III clinical trial during 1 year were invited (n = 325). Data on knowledge and perceived understanding were collected by a questionnaire, Quality of Informed Consent. RESULTS: are based on data from 268 patients (82%). Associations between knowledge and perceived understanding as well as clinical, socio-economic factors, and factors related to the informed consent procedure were tested. Results In the multivariate analysis no statistically significant associations were found between knowledge and any of the factors. Patients who reported longer time for trial information before their decision to participate, those who found the decision easy to take, and patients who reported use of other information sources had statistically significant higher perceived understanding. No differences in mean scores for knowledge or perceived understanding were found for any of the clinical factors (age, gender, diagnostic group, trial phase), socio-economic factors (education, marital status), and the following factors related to the informed consent procedure; presence of relative or nurse at information about the trial or previous participation in clinical trials. LIMITATIONS: No study specific questions were included due to the number of trials (n = 35). CONCLUSION: Strategies to increase patients' knowledge needs to be elaborated in order to improve the fulfilment of the requirements of informed consent in participants in cancer clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: An informed consent from patients participating in cancer clinical trials is mandatory according to international and national guidelines and laws. Insufficient knowledge and understanding by trial participants have been reported in several studies. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to investigate factors of importance for knowledge and understanding about cancer clinical trials among trial participants. METHODS: All patients consenting to a phase II or III clinical trial during 1 year were invited (n = 325). Data on knowledge and perceived understanding were collected by a questionnaire, Quality of Informed Consent. RESULTS: are based on data from 268 patients (82%). Associations between knowledge and perceived understanding as well as clinical, socio-economic factors, and factors related to the informed consent procedure were tested. Results In the multivariate analysis no statistically significant associations were found between knowledge and any of the factors. Patients who reported longer time for trial information before their decision to participate, those who found the decision easy to take, and patients who reported use of other information sources had statistically significant higher perceived understanding. No differences in mean scores for knowledge or perceived understanding were found for any of the clinical factors (age, gender, diagnostic group, trial phase), socio-economic factors (education, marital status), and the following factors related to the informed consent procedure; presence of relative or nurse at information about the trial or previous participation in clinical trials. LIMITATIONS: No study specific questions were included due to the number of trials (n = 35). CONCLUSION: Strategies to increase patients' knowledge needs to be elaborated in order to improve the fulfilment of the requirements of informed consent in participants in cancer clinical trials.
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: Brianna Hoffner; Susan Bauer-Wu; Suzanne Hitchcock-Bryan; Mark Powell; Andrew Wolanski; Steven Joffe Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-08-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David L Mount; Cralen Davis; Betty Kennedy; Susan Raatz; Kathy Dotson; Tiffany L Gary-Webb; Sheikilya Thomas; Karen C Johnson; Mark A Espeland Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Francis Anyaka Amayoa; Frederick Nelson Nakwagala; John Barugahare; Ian Guyton Munabi; Erisa Sabakaki Mwaka Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 1.978
Authors: Diane A J van der Biessen; Merlijn A Cranendonk; Gaia Schiavon; Bronno van der Holt; Erik A C Wiemer; Ferry A L M Eskens; Jaap Verweij; Maja J A de Jonge; Ron H J Mathijssen Journal: Oncologist Date: 2013-02-21
Authors: Michael P Lux; Thomas Hildebrandt; Sandra-Maria Knetzger; Michael G Schrauder; Sebastian M Jud; Alexander Hein; Claudia Rauh; Peter A Fasching; Matthias W Beckmann; Falk C Thiel Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 4.430