Sarah B Garrett1,2, Christopher J Koenig1,3, Laura Trupin1,2, Fay J Hlubocky4, Christopher K Daugherty4, Anne Reinert1, Pamela Munster1, Daniel Dohan5,6. 1. University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, 3333 California Street, San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA. 3. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. Daniel.Dohan@ucsf.edu. 6. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, 3333 California Street, San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA. Daniel.Dohan@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Discussions between oncologists and advanced cancer patients (ACPs) may touch on the complex issue of clinical trial participation. Numerous initiatives have sought to improve the quality of these potentially difficult conversations. However, we have limited data about what ACPs know about clinical research as they enter such discussions as, to date, such research has focused on the period following informed consent. This study examines ACPs' understanding of clinical research in the treatment period before consent. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with adult ACPs with limited treatment options at four clinics in an academic medical center. So as not to influence patients' perspectives, interviewers probed patients' knowledge of clinical research only if the patient first brought up the topic. Interviews (40-60 min) were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically and via quantitative content analysis by an interdisciplinary team. RESULTS: Of 78 patients recruited, 56 (72%) spontaneously brought up the topic of clinical research during interview and are included in this analysis. Qualitative thematic analysis and quantitative content analysis revealed that patients' knowledge varied in terms of (1) accuracy and (2) specificity (level of detail). ACPs who spoke with high specificity were not always accurate, and ACPs with accurate knowledge included both high- and low-specificity speakers. CONCLUSIONS: ACPs' knowledge of clinical research is variable. Patients who can discuss the technical details of their care may or may not understand the broader purpose and procedures of clinical trials. Understanding this variability is important for improving patient-provider communication about clinical research and supporting efforts to provide individualized care for ACPs.
PURPOSE: Discussions between oncologists and advanced cancerpatients (ACPs) may touch on the complex issue of clinical trial participation. Numerous initiatives have sought to improve the quality of these potentially difficult conversations. However, we have limited data about what ACPs know about clinical research as they enter such discussions as, to date, such research has focused on the period following informed consent. This study examines ACPs' understanding of clinical research in the treatment period before consent. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with adult ACPs with limited treatment options at four clinics in an academic medical center. So as not to influence patients' perspectives, interviewers probed patients' knowledge of clinical research only if the patient first brought up the topic. Interviews (40-60 min) were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically and via quantitative content analysis by an interdisciplinary team. RESULTS: Of 78 patients recruited, 56 (72%) spontaneously brought up the topic of clinical research during interview and are included in this analysis. Qualitative thematic analysis and quantitative content analysis revealed that patients' knowledge varied in terms of (1) accuracy and (2) specificity (level of detail). ACPs who spoke with high specificity were not always accurate, and ACPs with accurate knowledge included both high- and low-specificity speakers. CONCLUSIONS: ACPs' knowledge of clinical research is variable. Patients who can discuss the technical details of their care may or may not understand the broader purpose and procedures of clinical trials. Understanding this variability is important for improving patient-provider communication about clinical research and supporting efforts to provide individualized care for ACPs.
Authors: M Jefford; L Mileshkin; J Matthews; H Raunow; C O'Kane; T Cavicchiolo; H Brasier; M Anderson; J Reynolds Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jon D Miller; Michael R Kotowski; Robert L Comis; Sandi W Smith; Kami J Silk; Diane D Colaizzi; Linda G Kimmel Journal: Health Commun Date: 2011-01
Authors: Thomas G Roberts; Bernardo H Goulart; Lee Squitieri; Sarah C Stallings; Elkan F Halpern; Bruce A Chabner; G Scott Gazelle; Stan N Finkelstein; Jeffrey W Clark Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-11-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jane C Weeks; Paul J Catalano; Angel Cronin; Matthew D Finkelman; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating; Deborah Schrag Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sarah B Garrett; Thea M Matthews; Corey M Abramson; Christopher J Koenig; Fay J Hlubocky; Christopher K Daugherty; Pamela N Munster; Daniel Dohan Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2019-10-11
Authors: Mary Murphy; Eilís McCaughan; Matthew A Carson; Monica Donovan; Richard H Wilson; Donna Fitzsimons Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.234