PURPOSE: This randomized study was designed to assess the utility of an educational video in preparing cancer patients for decisions about clinical trial participation. The study assessed the effect of the video on patients' understanding and perceptions of clinical trials, its impact on decision making and patient-provider communication, and patients' satisfaction with the video. METHODS:Ninety adults considering cancer clinical trials were randomized to receive (n = 45) or not receive (n = 45) the video. Using the validated Quality of Informed Consent (QuIC), respondents' knowledge about clinical trial participation was assessed. All subjects completed additional questions about satisfaction with the video, decision making, and patient-provider communication. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, regression model, and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Although intent-to-treat analysis found no significant group differences in objective understanding between those randomized to view or not view the video, the majority of participants reported favorable experiences with regard to watching the video: 85% found the video was an important source of information about clinical trials; 81% felt better prepared to discuss the trial with their physician; 89% of those who watched the video with family indicated that it helped family better understand clinical trials; and 73% indicated it helped family accept their decision about participation. CONCLUSIONS: Although the video did not measurably improve patients' knowledge about clinical trials, it was an important source of information, helped educate families, and enhanced patient communication with their oncology providers.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This randomized study was designed to assess the utility of an educational video in preparing cancerpatients for decisions about clinical trial participation. The study assessed the effect of the video on patients' understanding and perceptions of clinical trials, its impact on decision making and patient-provider communication, and patients' satisfaction with the video. METHODS: Ninety adults considering cancer clinical trials were randomized to receive (n = 45) or not receive (n = 45) the video. Using the validated Quality of Informed Consent (QuIC), respondents' knowledge about clinical trial participation was assessed. All subjects completed additional questions about satisfaction with the video, decision making, and patient-provider communication. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, regression model, and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Although intent-to-treat analysis found no significant group differences in objective understanding between those randomized to view or not view the video, the majority of participants reported favorable experiences with regard to watching the video: 85% found the video was an important source of information about clinical trials; 81% felt better prepared to discuss the trial with their physician; 89% of those who watched the video with family indicated that it helped family better understand clinical trials; and 73% indicated it helped family accept their decision about participation. CONCLUSIONS: Although the video did not measurably improve patients' knowledge about clinical trials, it was an important source of information, helped educate families, and enhanced patient communication with their oncology providers.
Authors: N K Aaronson; E Visser-Pol; G H Leenhouts; M J Muller; A C van der Schot; F S van Dam; R B Keus; C C Koning; W W ten Bokkel Huinink; J A van Dongen; R Dubbelman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Thomas F Hack; Tim Whelan; Ivo A Olivotto; Lorna Weir; Barry D Bultz; Bryan Magwood; Fred Ashbury; Jane Brady Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Eric Kodish; Michelle Eder; Robert B Noll; Kathleen Ruccione; Beverly Lange; Anne Angiolillo; Rebecca Pentz; Stephen Zyzanski; Laura A Siminoff; Dennis Drotar Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-01-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ryan Spellecy; Sergey Tarima; Ellen Denzen; Heather Moore; Sunil Abhyankar; Peter Dawson; Amy Foley; Iris Gersten; Mitchell Horwitz; Lensa Idossa; Steven Joffe; Naynesh Kamani; Roberta King; Aleksandr Lazaryan; Lawrence Morris; Mary M Horowitz; Navneet S Majhail Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Stephanie A Kraft; Melissa Constantine; David Magnus; Kathryn M Porter; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Michael Green; Nancy E Kass; Benjamin S Wilfond; Mildred K Cho Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 2.486