PURPOSE: Low rates of participation in cancer clinical trials have been attributed to patient, institutional, and study characteristics. However, few studies have examined factors related to the consent process. We therefore evaluated the impact of consent timing and experience on markers of patient interest in research. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients enrolled in a cancer center tissue repository. During enrollment, patients were asked if they were willing to be contacted in the future to provide medical follow-up information and/or to participate in other clinical research. We analyzed the association between patient responses to these questions and consent process factors using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 922 patients evaluated, 85% agreed to be contacted to provide follow-up information, and 83% agreed to be contacted to participate in future research studies. In univariate analysis, willingness to be contacted for future research was associated with consenter experience (P = .01) and had a trend toward association with the timing of enrollment in relation to diagnosis (P = .08), but it was not associated with patient sex, race, or diagnosis. In multivariate analysis, responses remained associated with consenter experience (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Factors related to the consent process, including consenter experience and timing of study enrollment, are significantly associated with or have a trend toward association with markers of patient interest in clinical research. These understudied and potentially modifiable variables warrant further evaluation.
PURPOSE: Low rates of participation in cancer clinical trials have been attributed to patient, institutional, and study characteristics. However, few studies have examined factors related to the consent process. We therefore evaluated the impact of consent timing and experience on markers of patient interest in research. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients enrolled in a cancer center tissue repository. During enrollment, patients were asked if they were willing to be contacted in the future to provide medical follow-up information and/or to participate in other clinical research. We analyzed the association between patient responses to these questions and consent process factors using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 922 patients evaluated, 85% agreed to be contacted to provide follow-up information, and 83% agreed to be contacted to participate in future research studies. In univariate analysis, willingness to be contacted for future research was associated with consenter experience (P = .01) and had a trend toward association with the timing of enrollment in relation to diagnosis (P = .08), but it was not associated with patient sex, race, or diagnosis. In multivariate analysis, responses remained associated with consenter experience (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Factors related to the consent process, including consenter experience and timing of study enrollment, are significantly associated with or have a trend toward association with markers of patient interest in clinical research. These understudied and potentially modifiable variables warrant further evaluation.
Authors: Anjali S Advani; Benjamin Atkeson; Carrie L Brown; Bercedis L Peterson; Laura Fish; Jeffrey L Johnson; Jon P Gockerman; Marc Gautier Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Michael L Steinberg; Allen Fremont; David C Khan; David Huang; Herschel Knapp; Deborah Karaman; Nell Forge; Keith Andre; Lisa M Chaiken; Oscar E Streeter Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Terrance L Albrecht; Susan S Eggly; Marci E J Gleason; Felicity W K Harper; Tanina S Foster; Amy M Peterson; Heather Orom; Louis A Penner; John C Ruckdeschel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Simon J Craddock Lee; Caitlin C Murphy; Ann M Geiger; David E Gerber; John V Cox; Rasmi Nair; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sandra Garcia; Ajit Bisen; Jingsheng Yan; Xian-Jin Xie; Suresh Ramalingam; Joan H Schiller; David H Johnson; David E Gerber Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2017-08-09 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: David E Gerber; Torsten Reimer; Erin L Williams; Mary Gill; Laurin Loudat Priddy; Deidi Bergestuen; Joan H Schiller; Haskell Kirkpatrick; Simon J Craddock Lee Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Kathryn L Braun; Joann U Tsark; Amy Powers; Kristen Croom; Robert Kim; Francine C Gachupin; Paul Morris Journal: Biopreserv Biobank Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Tri Le; Hui Yang; Sawsan Rashdan; Mark S Link; Vlad G Zaha; Carlos Alvarez; David E Gerber Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: David E Gerber; Heidi A Hamann; Olivia Dorsey; Chul Ahn; Jessica L Phillips; Noel O Santini; Travis Browning; Cristhiaan D Ochoa; Joyce Adesina; Vijaya Subbu Natchimuthu; Eric Steen; Harris Majeed; Amrit Gonugunta; Simon J Craddock Lee Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 4.840