A Mahmud1, O Zalay1, A Springer2, K Arts3, E Eisenhauer1. 1. Department of Oncology and. 2. Department of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON. 3. Canadian Cancer Clinical Trials Network, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
Background: Clinical trials are vital for evidence-based cancer care. Oncologist engagement in clinical trials has an effect on patient recruitment, which in turn can affect trial success. Identifying barriers to clinical trial participation might enable interventions that could help to increase physician participation. Methods: To assess factors affecting physician engagement in oncology trials, a national survey was conducted using the online SurveyMonkey tool (SurveyMonkey, San Mateo, CA, U.S.A.; http://www.surveymonkey.com). Physicians associated with the Canadian Cancer Clinical Trials Network and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group were asked about their specialty, years of experience, barriers to participation, and motivating interventions, which included an open-ended question inviting survey takers to suggest interventions. Results: The survey collected 207 anonymous responses. Respondents were predominantly medical oncologists (46.4%), followed by radiation oncologists (24.6%). Almost 70% of the respondents had more than 10 years of experience. Significant time constraints included extra paperwork (77%), patient education (54%), and extended follow-up or clinic visits (53%). Timing of events within trials was also a barrier to participation (55%). Most respondents favoured clinical work credits (72%), academic credits (67%), a clinical trial alert system (75%), a regular meeting to review trial protocols (65%), and a screening log to aid in patient accrual (67%) as motivational strategies. Suggested interventions included increased support staff, streamlined regulatory burden, and provision of greater funding for trials and easier access to ancillary services. Conclusions: The present study confirms that Canadian oncologists are willing to participate in clinical research, but face multiple barriers to trial participation. Those barriers could be mitigated by the implementation of several interventions identified in the study.
Background: Clinical trials are vital for evidence-based cancer care. Oncologist engagement in clinical trials has an effect on patient recruitment, which in turn can affect trial success. Identifying barriers to clinical trial participation might enable interventions that could help to increase physician participation. Methods: To assess factors affecting physician engagement in oncology trials, a national survey was conducted using the online SurveyMonkey tool (SurveyMonkey, San Mateo, CA, U.S.A.; http://www.surveymonkey.com). Physicians associated with the Canadian Cancer Clinical Trials Network and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group were asked about their specialty, years of experience, barriers to participation, and motivating interventions, which included an open-ended question inviting survey takers to suggest interventions. Results: The survey collected 207 anonymous responses. Respondents were predominantly medical oncologists (46.4%), followed by radiation oncologists (24.6%). Almost 70% of the respondents had more than 10 years of experience. Significant time constraints included extra paperwork (77%), patient education (54%), and extended follow-up or clinic visits (53%). Timing of events within trials was also a barrier to participation (55%). Most respondents favoured clinical work credits (72%), academic credits (67%), a clinical trial alert system (75%), a regular meeting to review trial protocols (65%), and a screening log to aid in patient accrual (67%) as motivational strategies. Suggested interventions included increased support staff, streamlined regulatory burden, and provision of greater funding for trials and easier access to ancillary services. Conclusions: The present study confirms that Canadian oncologists are willing to participate in clinical research, but face multiple barriers to trial participation. Those barriers could be mitigated by the implementation of several interventions identified in the study.
Authors: Carol P Somkin; Andrea Altschuler; Lynn Ackerson; Ann M Geiger; Sarah M Greene; Judy Mouchawar; Joan Holup; Louis Fehrenbacher; Andrew Nelson; Andrew Glass; Jonathan Polikoff; Sigrid Tishler; Carolyn Schmidt; Terry Field; Edward Wagner Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Nancy L Keating; Arnold L Potosky; Anita Ambs; Yulei He; Mark C Hornbrook; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-02-11 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Morgan D Black; Lilian Esene; Richard McClelland; Heather Mayer; Stephen Welch; Glenn Bauman; Theodore Vandenberg Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-05-18
Authors: David Ponka; Megan Coffman; Krystle Elizabeth Fraser-Barclay; Richard D W Fortier; Amanda Howe; Michael Kidd; Robert P Lennon; Jeremiah K A Madaki; Bob Mash; Sherina Mohd Sidik; Chris van Weel; Kristina Zawaly; Felicity Goodyear-Smith Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2020-07
Authors: Andrew R Wong; Virginia Sun; Kevin George; Jennifer Liu; Simran Padam; Brandon A Chen; Thomas George; Arya Amini; Daneng Li; Mina S Sedrak Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-04-02
Authors: Rema Raman; Yakeel T Quiroz; Oliver Langford; Jiyoon Choi; Marina Ritchie; Morgan Baumgartner; Dorene Rentz; Neelum T Aggarwal; Paul Aisen; Reisa Sperling; Joshua D Grill Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-07-01
Authors: Charles H Norell; John Butler; Rhonda Farrell; Alon Altman; James Bentley; Citadel J Cabasag; Paul A Cohen; Scott Fegan; Michael Fung-Kee-Fung; Charlie Gourley; Neville F Hacker; Louise Hanna; Claus Kim Høgdall; Gunnar Kristensen; Janice Kwon; Orla McNally; Gregg Nelson; Andy Nordin; Dearbhaile O'Donnell; Tine Schnack; Peter H Sykes; Ewa Zotow; Samantha Harrison Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 3.437