Kate E Elzinga1, Omar F Khan2, Andrew R Tang2, Conrad V Fernandez3, Christine L Elzinga4, Daniel Yc Heng4, Michael M Vickers5, Tony H Truong4, Patricia A Tang6. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada. 4. Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 5. Division of Medical Oncology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Patricia.Tang@albertahealthservices.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The provision of study results to research participants is supported by pediatric and adult literature. This study assessed adult cancer patient preferences surrounding aggregate result disclosure to study participants. METHODS: A 46-item questionnaire was given to 250 adult cancer patients who had participated in oncology trials at a single center. Respondents answered questions surrounding their preferences for timing, content, and modality of communication for dissemination of study results. RESULTS: Questionnaire completion rate was 76% (189/250). Most patients (92%) strongly felt a right to know study results. Patients preferred result dissemination via letter for trials with positive outcomes, but preferred in-person clinic visits for negative outcomes. Despite this, a majority of participants (59%) found letters acceptable to inform participants of negative results. Only a minority (36%) of the participants found Internet-based disclosure acceptable for negative trial results. Unfortunately, very few patients (8%) recalled having received the results for a study they participated in, and of these patients, less than half fully understood the results they were given. CONCLUSION: Most clinical trial participants feel they have a right to study result disclosure, regardless of trial outcome. In-person visits are preferred for negative results, but more feasible alternatives such as letters were still acceptable for the majority of participants. However, Internet-based disclosure was not acceptable to most participants in oncology trials. Time and cost allocations for result disclosure should be considered during grant and ethics board applications, and clear guidelines are required to help researchers share the results with patients.
BACKGROUND: The provision of study results to research participants is supported by pediatric and adult literature. This study assessed adult cancerpatient preferences surrounding aggregate result disclosure to study participants. METHODS: A 46-item questionnaire was given to 250 adult cancerpatients who had participated in oncology trials at a single center. Respondents answered questions surrounding their preferences for timing, content, and modality of communication for dissemination of study results. RESULTS: Questionnaire completion rate was 76% (189/250). Most patients (92%) strongly felt a right to know study results. Patients preferred result dissemination via letter for trials with positive outcomes, but preferred in-person clinic visits for negative outcomes. Despite this, a majority of participants (59%) found letters acceptable to inform participants of negative results. Only a minority (36%) of the participants found Internet-based disclosure acceptable for negative trial results. Unfortunately, very few patients (8%) recalled having received the results for a study they participated in, and of these patients, less than half fully understood the results they were given. CONCLUSION: Most clinical trial participants feel they have a right to study result disclosure, regardless of trial outcome. In-person visits are preferred for negative results, but more feasible alternatives such as letters were still acceptable for the majority of participants. However, Internet-based disclosure was not acceptable to most participants in oncology trials. Time and cost allocations for result disclosure should be considered during grant and ethics board applications, and clear guidelines are required to help researchers share the results with patients.
Authors: Aimee L Pierce; Chelsea G Cox; Huong T Nguyen; Dan Hoang; Megan Witbracht; Daniel L Gillen; Joshua D Grill Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2018 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Paul B Chapman; Nathan J Liu; Qin Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Sara Hanley; George J Bosl; David R Spriggs Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Casey Overby Taylor; Natalie Flaks Manov; Katherine D Crew; Chunhua Weng; John J Connolly; Christopher G Chute; Daniel E Ford; Harold Lehmann; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Pedro J Caraballo; Ingrid A Holm; Debra Mathews Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-05-11
Authors: Thomas Solgaard Svendsen; Jone Bjornestad; Tale Ekeroth Slyngstad; James R McKay; Aleksander Waagan Skaalevik; Marius Veseth; Christian Moltu; Sverre Nesvaag Journal: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy Date: 2020-01-23
Authors: Annabelle South; Nalinie Joharatnam-Hogan; Cara Purvis; Elizabeth C James; Carlos Diaz-Montana; William J Cragg; Conor Tweed; Archie Macnair; Matthew R Sydes; Claire Snowdon; Katie Gillies; Talia Isaacs; Barbara E Bierer; Andrew J Copas Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-10-04 Impact factor: 11.069