scholarly journals Assessment of knowledge and awareness about clinical trials of patients participating in cancer trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikolaj Bartoszkiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Actual State ◽  
Innovative Therapy ◽  
Consent Procedure ◽  
Innovative Therapies ◽  
State Of Research ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
Attending Physician

Introduction: Clinical research in the field of oncology is necessary to check the safety and effectiveness of potential treatment methods and translate innovative knowledge into measurable benefits for patients as well as to introduce innovative therapies for cancer treatment. In 2019, 18.1 million new cancer cases were diagnosed worldwide. Aim: The purpose of this study is to assess patients knowledge and awareness of the clinical trials they participate in, as well as the quality of treatment in the clinical trial compared to standard treatment. Material and methods: The authors anonymous questionnaire was used to assess the state of knowledge of patients. Seventy patients in clinical trials participated in the study, 87% of whom were women, and 13% were men. The patient’s knowledge was compared with the actual state of research in the chemotherapy department, and general questions about clinical trials were asked. Results and discussion: Most often, patients gained knowledge about clinical trials from the attending physician (37%). As many as 79% of study participants were satisfied with the informed consent procedure. The factor that most determined the participation in the clinical trial (36%) was access to innovative therapy not available in the national healthcare system. Every fourth participant in the study was unable to determine the phase of participation in clinical trials. Conclusions: Based on anonymous survey results, patients who participate in clinical trials know the clinical trials essential parts. The vast majority are satisfied with the informed consent process, the availability of innovative therapies, and a clinical trial phase.

Ethics in Clinical Studies: The Dilemma of very Young and Old

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Avisek Dutta ◽  
Avisek Dutta ◽  
Avisek Dutta
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Human Physiology ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Infantile Spasms ◽  
Care Givers ◽  
Improve Health

The objectives of the research are to percolate knowledge which can improve health and improve understanding of human physiology. Pervasive exclusion of children and elderly in clinical trials as is happening today is not justified. Children have different physiology and pharmacology from adults; often adverse effects are also different and specific. Diseases like neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, infantile spasms are very age specific. Elderly too, have age specific issues like dementias, malignancies, weakened systems and polypharmacy that make them a special cohort. Clinical trials in these age groups are essential so as to gather comprehensive data about a medication across all age groups. Informed consent is a challenge in both these groups. It can be remedied by obtaining consent from parents, or legally acceptable representative in case of children and care givers and/or LARs in case of the elderly. Oral assent from 7 to 11 years, and written assent from 12 to 18 years and in the elderly, along with consent from the LAR, parents, care givers as the case may be, forms the bedrock of good clinical trial ethics.

Increasing Health Literacy to Improve Clinical Trial Recruitment

2018 ◽  
pp. 94-108
Author(s):  
Saliha Akhtar
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Health Literacy ◽  
Trial Recruitment ◽  
Negative Perception ◽  
Consent Forms ◽  
Clinical Trial Recruitment ◽  
And Training

Health literacy has been found to be linked to healthcare understanding and decision making. Therefore, it makes sense why individuals who do not understand clinical trials will be less likely to want to enroll in one. In fact, three major barriers found in the literature that prevent potential participants from enrolling in clinical trials include a distrust or negative perception, lack of understanding, and lack of accessible and affordable healthcare. Hence, there is a need to increase potential participants' healthcare understanding so that they can make the best healthcare decisions for themselves. Strategies suggested to help increase potential participants' health literacy include revising informed consent forms, utilizing culturally targeted statements, using a variety of material, and training investigative site personnel. These proposed strategies may help increase health literacy, which in turn could improve clinical trial recruitment. Furthermore, these strategies focus on different elements of health literacy and coupled together may bring the most improvement.

A novel, hybrid, single- and multi-site clinical trial design for CLN3 disease, an ultra-rare lysosomal storage disorder

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 555-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather R Adams ◽  
Sara Defendorf ◽  
Amy Vierhile ◽  
Jonathan W Mink ◽  
Frederick J Marshall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Neurodegenerative Disorder ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Local Participation ◽  
Cln3 Disease ◽  
Study Participants

Background Travel burden often substantially limits the ability of individuals to participate in clinical trials. Wide geographic dispersion of individuals with rare diseases poses an additional key challenge in the conduct of clinical trials for rare diseases. Novel technologies and methods can improve access to research by connecting participants in their homes and local communities to a distant research site. For clinical trials, however, understanding of factors important for transition from traditional multi-center trial models to local participation models is limited. We sought to test a novel, hybrid, single- and multi-site clinical trial design in the context of a trial for Juvenile Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (CLN3 disease), a very rare pediatric neurodegenerative disorder. Methods We created a “hub and spoke” model for implementing a 22-week crossover clinical trial of mycophenolate compared with placebo, with two 8-week study arms. A single central site, the “hub,” conducted screening, consent, drug dispensing, and tolerability and efficacy assessments. Each participant identified a clinician to serve as a collaborating “spoke” site to perform local safety monitoring. Study participants traveled to the hub at the beginning and end of each study arm, and to their individual spoke site in the intervening weeks. Results A total of 18 spoke sites were established for 19 enrolled study participants. One potential participant was unable to identify a collaborating local site and was thus unable to participate. Study start-up required a median 6.7 months (interquartile range = 4.6–9.2 months). Only 33.3% (n = 6 of 18) of spoke site investigators had prior clinical trial experience, thus close collaboration with respect to study startup, training, and oversight was an important requirement. All but one participant completed all study visits; no study visits were missed due to travel requirements. Conclusions This study represents a step toward local trial participation for patients with rare diseases. Even in the context of close oversight, local participation models may be best suited for studies of compounds with well-understood side-effect profiles, for those with straightforward modes of administration, or for studies requiring extended follow-up periods.

Telephone-based nursing intervention improves the effectiveness of the informed consent process in cancer clinical trials.

1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 984-996 ◽  
Author(s):  
N K Aaronson ◽  
E Visser-Pol ◽  
G H Leenhouts ◽  
M J Muller ◽  
A C van der Schot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Nursing Intervention ◽  
Informed Consent Process ◽  
Consent Process ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Oncology Nurse

PURPOSE Here we report the results of a randomized study undertaken to test the efficacy of a supplementary, telephone-based nursing intervention in increasing patients' awareness and understanding of the clinical trials in which they are asked to participate. METHODS During a 12-month period, 180 cancer patients who were approached to participate in a phase II or III clinical trial were randomized to undergo either of the following: (1) standard informed consent procedures based on verbal explanations from the treating physician plus written information (controls); or (2) standard informed consent procedures plus a supplementary, telephone-based contact with an oncology nurse (intervention). For purposes of evaluation, face-to-face interviews were conducted with all patients approximately 1 week after the informed consent process had been completed. RESULTS The two groups were comparable with regard to sociodemographic and clinical variables. Both groups had a high level of awareness of the diagnosis and of the nature and objectives of the proposed treatments. The intervention group was significantly (P < .01) better informed about the following: (1) the risks and side effects of treatment; (2) the clinical trial context of the treatment; (3) the objectives of the clinical trial; (4) where relevant, the use of randomization in allocating treatment; (5) the availability of alternative treatments; (6) the voluntary nature of participation; and (7) the right to withdraw from the clinical trial. The intervention did not have any significant effect on patients' anxiety levels or on rates of clinical trial participation. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with the intervention. CONCLUSION The use of a supplementary, telephone-based nursing intervention is a feasible and effective means to increase cancer patients' awareness and understanding of the salient issues that surround the clinical trials in which they are asked to participate.

scholarly journals INFORMED CONSENT IN CLINICAL TRIALS FOR PERSONS WITH DEMENTIA

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S28-S28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan G Carpenter
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Surrogate Decision Maker ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
Consent Document ◽  
Surrogate Decision

Abstract Informed consent is one of the most important processes during the implementation of a clinical trial; special attention must be given to meeting the needs of persons with dementia in nursing homes who have impaired decision making capacity. We overcame several challenges during enrollment and consent of potential participants in a pilot clinical trial including: (1) the consent document was designed for legally authorized representatives however some potential participants were capable of making their own decisions; (2) the written document was lengthy yet all seven pages were required by the IRB; (3) the required legal wording was difficult to understand and deterred potential participants; and (4) the primary mode of communication was via phone. We tailored assent and informed consent procedures to persons with dementia and their legally authorized representative/surrogate decision maker to avoid risking an incomplete trial and to improve generalizability of trial results to all persons with dementia.

Entering a Clinical Trial: Is It Right For You?–A randomized study of the Clinical Trials Video and its impact on the informed consent process

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9072-9072
Author(s):  
S. Hitchcock-Bryan ◽  
B. Hoffner ◽  
S. Joffe ◽  
M. Powell ◽  
C. Parker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Informed Consent Process ◽  
Consent Process ◽  
Provider Communication ◽  
Patient Provider Communication ◽  
Source Of Information

9072 Background: In an effort to improve the informed consent process for subjects considering participation in a clinical trial, we created an educational video: “Entering a Clinical Trial: Is it Right for You?” In this randomized study, we assessed the effect of the video on patients’ understanding and perceptions of clinical trials. We also assessed patient satisfaction with the video and how the video impacted decision-making and patient-provider communication. Methods: We recruited 90 adults considering cancer clinical trials of whom 77 participated. After discussing the trial with the physician and reading the trial consent form, patients were randomized to receive (n=38) or not receive (n=39) the study video. Using a validated questionnaire, we interviewed subjects to assess objective understanding of the trial, our primary endpoint, and self-reported understanding of clinical trials. All subjects completed a second interview assessing secondary endpoints, including patient-provider communication, satisfaction with video, and decision-making. We used linear regression (two-sided tests) to conduct the primary analysis and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and descriptive statistics to analyze the secondary aims. Results: Neither objective nor self-reported understanding of clinical trials differed between the two groups (Mean 86.5 vs. 87, p=0.75). 85% (61/72) indicated the video was an important source of information about clinical trials; 89% of those who watched the video with their family/friends (n=37) said the video helped loved ones better understand clinical trials; 73% indicated it helped their family accept their decision about participation. 81% (58/72) felt better prepared to discuss the trial with their physician after watching the video. Of those who found the video helpful with decision- making, 80% (21/26) were considering a trial for the first time compared with 19% (5/26) veterans who had previously participated in a clinical trial. Conclusions: The video did not measurably improve subjects’ understanding of their clinical trials. However, subjects reported that the video was an important source of information, helped them educate their families, and enhanced patient-provider communication. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Evaluation of an enhanced training package to support clinical trials training in low and middle income countries (LMICs): experiences from the Born Too Soon Optimising Nutrition study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleanor Jane Mitchell ◽  
Jalemba Aluvaala ◽  
Lucy Bradshaw ◽  
Jane P Daniels ◽  
Ashok Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Training Package

Abstract Background Training is essential before working on a clinical trial, yet there is limited evidence on effective training methods. In low and middle income countries (LMICs), training of research staff was considered the second highest priority in a global health methodological research priority setting exercise. Methods We explored whether an enhanced training package in a neonatal feasibility study in Kenya and India, utilising elements of the train-the-trainer approach, altered clinicians and researchers’ clinical trials knowledge. A lead “trainer” was identified at each site who attended a UK-based introductory course on clinical trials. A two-day in-country training session was conducted at each hospital. Sessions included the study protocol, governance, data collection and ICH-Good Clinical Practice (GCP). To assess effectiveness of the training package, participants completed questionnaires at the start and end of the study period, including demographics, prior research experience, protocol-specific questions, informed consent and ICH-GCP. Results Thirty participants attended in-country training sessions and completed baseline questionnaires. Around three quarters had previously worked on a research study, yet only half had previously received training. Nineteen participants completed questionnaires at the end of the study period. Questionnaire scores were higher at the end of the study period, though not significantly so. Few participants ‘passed’ the informed consent and ICH-Good Clinical Practice (GCP) modules, using the Global Health Network Training Centre pass mark of ≥ 80%. Participants who reported having prior research experience scored higher in questionnaires before the start of the study period. Conclusions An enhanced training package can improve knowledge of research methods and governance though only small improvements in mean scores between questionnaires completed before and at the end of the study period were seen and were not statistically significant. This is the first report evaluating a clinical trial training package in a neonatal trial in LMICs. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, research activity was paused and there was a significant time lapse between training and start of the study, which likely impacted upon the scores reported here. Given the burden of disease in LMICs, developing high-quality training materials which utilise a variety of approaches and build research capacity, is critical.

scholarly journals Lay persons’ perception of the requirements for research in emergency obstetric and newborn care

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Kabonge Kaye
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Newborn Care ◽  
Obstetric Complications ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Lay Persons ◽  
Newborn Complications

Abstract Background: Factors that could potentially act as facilitators and barriers to successful recruitment strategies in perinatal clinical trials are not well documented. The objective was to assess lay persons’ understanding of the informed consent for randomized clinical trial in emergency obstetric and newborn care.Methods: This was a qualitative study conducted among survivors of severe obstetric complications who were attending the post-natal clinic of Kawempe National Referral Hospital, Uganda, 6-8 weeks after surviving severe obstetric complications during pregnancy or childbirth. The study that involved 18 in-depth interviews was conducted from June 1, 2019 to July 6, 2019. The issues explored included perceptions of the purpose and necessity to conduct such research how research-related information would be disclosed, and what could be the potential benefits and risks of participation. The data was analyzed by thematic analysis.Results: Respondents felt that research was necessary to investigate the cause, prevention or complications of an illness, especially as much was known about some pregnancy and newborn complications. Most believed that the emergency contexts affects whether and what prospective participants may understand if information about research was disclosed. Whereas they did not see the value of procedures like randomization, they felt that if these and any other procedures necessary should be done transparently and fairly. The decisions to participate would significantly be influenced by possibility of risk to the unborn baby or the newborn. Solidarity was an important influence on decision-making.Conclusions: Respondents valued participation in RCTs in emergency obstetric and newborn care. However, they expressed concerns and valued openness, transparency and accountability with regard to how clinical trials information is disclosed and the decision-making process for clinical trial participation. While autonomy and solidarity are contradictory values, they complement each other during decision-making for informed consent.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncology clinical trial recruitment in an Irish cancer center.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18756-e18756
Author(s):  
Ronan Andrew McLaughlin ◽  
Valerie Madigan ◽  
Maureen O'Grady ◽  
Thamir Andrew Mahgoub ◽  
Roshni Andrew Kalachand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Impact

e18756 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented disruptions to cancer clinical trial research across the world due to a temporary global suspension of patients’ recruitment to cancer clinical trials. Access to clinical trials permits better treatment options and best clinical practice standards for patients with cancer. We present the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer clinical trial activity at the Cancer Clinical Trials Unit (CCTU) at the Mid-Western Cancer Centre, University Hospital Limerick (UHL). Over the last 4 years 28 clinical trials, both interventional and translational, have opened here, across a variety of primary disease sites, with 5 trials opened in 2017, 11 in 2018, 7 in 2019 but only 2 in the first 10 months of 2020 until 3 further trials were opened in December. Methods: CCTU records were reviewed to identify the number of patients screened and consented to participate in cancer clinical trials at UHL in 2020, which were compared directly with corresponding numbers for 2019. Results: In 2019, 17 clinical trials were open and recruiting at the CCTU, UHL. During 2020, 19 trials were recruiting although during the 1st surge of the COVID-19 pandemic recruitment was essentially suspended and CCTU staff were redeployed throughout the hospital. 1st Six months 2020 vs 2019 In the six months from January 2020 until the end of June 2020, 99 patients were screened and only 15 (15.2%) signed informed consent to participate in a cancer clinical trial. When these figures are directly compared with the first six months of 2019, there is a 33% reduction in patients screened for participation (147 vs 99) and a 60% reduction in patients consented (37 vs 15) to clinical trials. 12 Months 2020 vs 2019 In total during 2019, 376 patients were screened for inclusion to participate and 49 (13%) patients signed informed consent to participate in a clinical trial within CCTU at UHL. In 2020, 914 patients were screened for participation with 51 patients consented to participate (5.6%). The majority (45/51 (88%)) of patients consented to cancer clinical trials in 2020 at the CCTU, UHL were recruited to translational based studies and only 6 (12%) consented to interventional studies compared with 2019 when 30/49 (61%) consented to translational and 30/49 (39%) to interventional studies. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the percentage of patients consented to participation in a clinical trial reduced significantly, as compared to the previous year (5.6% vs 13%). Fewer interventional studies have recruited patients during 2020. As we enter the third surge of COVID-19 infections in Ireland, we must continue to monitor and identify effective strategies to navigate the ever-changing situation for cancer clinical trials, in an attempt to maintain access to high quality cancer clinical trial opportunities for our patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document