Seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials:: describing current practice
Introduction
Clinical trials are now regarded as the most effective means of evaluating new cancer treatments; however, many patients do not participate in trials. In the UK it is estimated that between 5% and 10% of eligible patients (including those approached to participate and those who are not) enter clinical trials in institutions promoting clinical trial participation (Jenkins, Fallowfield, Souhami, & Sawtell, 1999). Slow trial accrual delays the assessment and introduction of effective new treatments and delays the abandonment of less effective or dangerous ones.
The reasons that eligible patients refuse participation have been explored in several studies and include concerns regarding experimentation and uncertainty and perceived loss of control over treatment decisions (Gotay, 1991; Schain, 1994). Patients frequently: (i) do not understand the rationale for trials, (ii) have poor recall of information actually provided, and (iii) may be impeded from making fully informed decisions due to physiological and psychological difficulties (Benson, Pregle, & Bean, 1991; Penman, Holland, & Bahna, 1984; Ellis, Dowsett, Butow, & Tattersall, 1999). Misunderstanding has also has been documented in patients who have received information sheets and consent forms for standard treatment protocols (Olver, Turrell, Olszewski, & Wilson, 1995), suggesting that even when the complexities of randomisation are removed, patients have difficulty in understanding the issues required for an informed choice.
In addition to the patient factors noted above, prospective studies have shown that 70–80% of non-accrual is attributable to the doctor (Lee & Breaux, 1983). Many doctors experience problems initiating discussions relating to clinical trials and find the dual roles of caring physician and experimenter difficult to resolve. Fallowfield (1995) noted that doctors included clinical trials among a list of the five most difficult areas of discussion during the consultation. The main difficulties experienced by these doctors were lack of time, lack of support staff and problems explaining difficult concepts such as randomisation. Consequently, doctors may approach only those patients with whom they have established a sufficient rapport or whom they believe will understand complex information, thus potentially reducing the generalisability of results. Clearly the trial discussion between doctor and patient is a crucial step and potential barrier to patient participation, yet little is known about the content and process of this discussion. Institutional ethics committees vet information sheets and consent forms; however, the type and amount of verbal information provided by doctors is not monitored, and the impact of that information on patient accrual and other outcomes is not clear.
Tomamichel et al. (1995) analysed the content of informed consent interviews. They concluded that doctors’ information provision and emotional supportive skills were adequate, however, the quality of negotiation in the interactions, characterised by doctors’ capacity and willingness to perceive and discuss the emotional needs, complaints or objections of patients, needed to be improved. Jenkins et al. (1999) also analysed audiotapes of informed consent interviews by noting the presence or absence of key information items and behaviours. Of note, in 48% of these consent discussions the term randomisation was not used. Information leaflets were not given to 28% of the patients and patient understanding of information about the trial was checked in only 17% of the consultations. The duration of consent consultations was less than 15 min, and most patients signed the consent document at the first consultation where the clinical trial was discussed (Jenkins et al., 1999).
Albrecht, Blanchard, Ruckdeschel, Coovert, and Strongbow (1999) videotaped cancer consultations between 12 oncologists and 48 of their patients in which patients were invited to participate in a clinical trial. The authors developed and applied a coding system (the Moffitt Accrual Analysis System—MAAS) to the videotapes in order to explore the relationship between specific physicians’ behaviours and subsequent patient accrual to clinical trials. The results of the general analysis revealed that cancer patients who joined trials did so when their relationship with their oncologist was coded as: (a) cordial, (b) demonstrating high levels of patient–physician connection and trust, and (c) the oncologist was responsive to patient concerns. In addition, physicians of patients who joined trials mentioned the benefits of the study and the side effects of the treatments more often than those of patients who did not accrue.
These studies were limited to analyses of the part of the consultation pertaining to the clinical trial and have explored the presence or absence of information and behaviours deemed to be significant in the consent discussion. The current study extends these prior analyses to explore the informed consent discussion in the context of the entire consultation in which the array of treatment options is presented. Previously, we developed a typology, incorporating a set of ethical strategies, to describe doctor–patient interactions that occur when participation in phase II and III clinical trials is discussed (Brown, Butow, Butt, Moore, & Tattersall, 2003). Our primary aim here is to describe current practice when Australian oncologists convey treatment information and seek informed consent from their patients to participate in clinical trials, and to compare these practices against the previously developed ideal typology.
Section snippets
Method
Data presented here were collected as part of a larger study exploring the effectiveness of a communication skills training programme designed to assist doctors gain ethical informed consent to Phase II and III clinical trials. The larger study employed a pre-test/post-test design. Patient and doctor variables were measured before and after doctors were involved in an intensive communication skills training workshop based on the typology mentioned previously. The data presented here were
Results
Fourteen medical oncologists from the three participating centres agreed to participate in the study. Four withdrew when they did not accrue patients to trials during the period of this study. Of the 10 remaining, four were female and six male with a mean age of 42.7 years (range, 35–60). Three practiced general oncology while the other participants practiced site-specific oncology, including breast (3), lung and prostate (2), haematologic malignancies (1) and gynecology and sarcomas (1). Three
Discussion
This study explored the communication styles currently utilised by oncologists when seeking informed consent from patients to enter cancer clinical trials. These communication styles were compared against a typology within four domains that were previously proposed as being important to gaining ethical informed consent. A coding system was devised to identify the presence of key features of these themes and to rate the quality of these exchanges.
Other authors have attempted to describe the way
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the oncologists who participated in the study and the research nurses who recruited patients. We would also like to acknowledge Ms. Monika Dzidowski for her work in managing the data and her assistance in coding. This research was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NH&MRC grant number 950461).
References (26)
- et al.
Shared decision making in the medical encounter encounterWhat does it mean? (or it takes two to tango)
Social Science & Medicine
(1997) - et al.
The physician—patient encounterThe physician as a perfect agent for patient versus the informed treatment decision making model
Social Science & Medicine
(1998) - et al.
Shared decisions in cancer care
Social Science & Medicine
(2001) Accrual to cancer clinical trialsDirections from the research literature
Social Science & Medicine
(1991)- et al.
How do doctors explain randomised clinical trials to their patients?
European Journal of Cancer
(1999) - et al.
Redressing the balance—the ethics of not entering an eligible patient on a randomised clinical trial
Annals of Oncology
(1992) - et al.
Informed consent for phase 1 studiesEvaluation of quantity and quality of information provided to patients
Annals of Oncology
(1995) - et al.
Strategic physician communication and oncology clinical trials
Journal of Clinical Oncology
(1999) - Ausstats (1997). Vol. 2002. Australian Bureau of...
- et al.
Oncologists’ reluctance to accrue patients onto clinical trials
Journal of Clinical Oncology
(1991)