Literature DB >> 30885710

Motivations and Decision Making Processes of Men With X-linked Retinoschisis Considering Participation in an Ocular Gene Therapy Trial.

Amy Turriff1, Delphine Blain2, Morgan Similuk3, Barbara Biesecker4, Henry Wiley5, Catherine Cukras5, Paul A Sieving6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe the motivations, expectations, and other factors men with X-linked retinoschisis (XLRS) consider when making decisions to participate in an early phase ocular gene therapy clinical trial.
DESIGN: Qualitative interview study.
METHODS: Men with XLRS who were considering participation in a phase I/IIa ocular gene therapy clinical trial at the National Eye Institute were eligible for this study. Trial participants (n = 9) were interviewed prior to receiving the gene transfer and then at 3 and 12 months later. Trial participation decliners (n = 2) were interviewed at an initial visit and 12 months later. Those screened for the trial and found ineligible (n = 2) were interviewed at an initial visit only. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically.
RESULTS: Interview participants described decision making factors as risk-benefit assessments, personal intuition, trust in the study team, and religious faith. Altruism and the potential for therapeutic benefit were the main motives for trial participation, whereas the uncertainty of risks and benefits was the reason 2 men declined participation. Although most participants hoped for direct benefit, no one expected to benefit. Almost all interview participants considered their decision straightforward and were satisfied with their decision when interviewed over time. Meaningful relationships with the study team and perceived secondary benefits to participation contributed to positive trial experiences.
CONCLUSIONS: Engaging prospective research participants in a discussion about their hopes, expectations, and personal factors provides a more complete understanding of patient decision making and may help support informed choices to participate in clinical trials for XLRS. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30885710      PMCID: PMC6642689          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.03.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0002-9394            Impact factor:   5.258


  23 in total

1.  Therapeutic misconception in clinical research: frequency and risk factors.

Authors:  Paul S Appelbaum; Charles W Lidz; Thomas Grisso
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr

Review 2.  Heuristic decision making.

Authors:  Gerd Gigerenzer; Wolfgang Gaissmaier
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 24.137

3.  The problem with optimism in clinical trials.

Authors:  Lynn A Jansen
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug

4.  An approach to evaluating the therapeutic misconception.

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Lauren Schrock; Renee M Wilson; Samuel A Frank; Robert G Holloway; Karl Kieburtz; Raymond G de Vries
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2009 Sep-Oct

5.  The culture of faith and hope: patients' justifications for their high estimations of expected therapeutic benefit when enrolling in early phase oncology trials.

Authors:  Daniel P Sulmasy; Alan B Astrow; M Kai He; Damon M Seils; Neal J Meropol; Ellyn Micco; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  The correlation between patient characteristics and expectations of benefit from Phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  Kevin P Weinfurt; Liana D Castel; Yun Li; Daniel P Sulmasy; Andrew M Balshem; Al B Benson; Caroline B Burnett; Darrell J Gaskin; John L Marshall; Elyse F Slater; Kevin A Schulman; Neal J Meropol
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  The therapeutic misconception: problems and solutions.

Authors:  Charles W Lidz; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self.

Authors:  Sharon K McCann; Marion K Campbell; Vikki A Entwistle
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-03-22       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Expectations of benefit in early-phase clinical trials: implications for assessing the adequacy of informed consent.

Authors:  Kevin P Weinfurt; Damon M Seils; Janice P Tzeng; Kate L Compton; Daniel P Sulmasy; Alan B Astrow; Nicholas A Solarino; Kevin A Schulman; Neal J Meropol
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2008-03-31       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Risk perception and decision processes underlying informed consent to research participation.

Authors:  William W Reynolds; Robert M Nelson
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2007-08-08       Impact factor: 4.634

View more
  3 in total

1.  Measurement Properties of the Attitudes to Gene Therapy for the Eye (AGT-Eye) Instrument for People With Inherited Retinal Diseases.

Authors:  Myra B McGuinness; Alexis Ceecee Britten-Jones; Lauren N Ayton; Robert P Finger; Fred K Chen; John Grigg; Heather G Mack
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 3.283

2.  Motivations and Decision-Making of Adult Sickle Cell Patients in High-Risk Clinical Research.

Authors:  Hae Lin Cho; Scott Y H Kim; Courtney Fitzhugh; Matthew Hsieh; John Tisdale; Christine Grady
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Perspectives of people with inherited retinal diseases on ocular gene therapy in Australia: protocol for a national survey.

Authors:  Heather G Mack; Fred K Chen; John Grigg; Robyn Jamieson; John De Roach; Fleur O'Hare; Alexis Ceecee Britten-Jones; Myra McGuinness; Nicole Tindill; Lauren Ayton
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 2.692

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.