Top

Published in:

01-12-2017

Evaluating the Use of Plain Language in a Cancer Clinical Trial Website/App

Authors: Paula L. Schultz, Regina Carlisle, Chesley Cheatham, Melissa O’Grady

Published in: Journal of Cancer Education | Issue 4/2017

Abstract

Medically complex titles and descriptions found on clinical trial websites and online applications present a barrier to comprehension for users from the general public. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of plain language trial descriptions for user comprehension of basic trial details. Two hundred seventeen volunteers recruited from patient waiting areas completed 441 user tests of ten plain language trial descriptions. The majority of volunteers adequately comprehended the cancer type and basic inclusion/exclusion criteria from plain language trial descriptions. Difficulty comprehending the treatment being studied was seen in seven of ten descriptions tested. Revision and retesting of the seven trial descriptions showed continued user challenges in comprehending the treatment being studied. Plain language clinical trial descriptions integrated into a website/app allowed users to understand basic inclusion/exclusion criteria. Despite plain language used, discerning the treatment being studied may be difficult for some users. Integration of plain language descriptions into clinical trial online applications can help users understand trial basics. Further research regarding effective use of plain language to communicate the treatment being studied is needed.

Available only for authorised users

Comis RL, Miller JD (2005) Cancer clinical trials awareness and attitudes in cancer survivors. Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups. Retrieved from http://www.cancertrialshelp.org/CTHpdf/asco_poster.pdf

Murthy VH, Krumholtz HM, Gross CP (2004) Participation in cancer clinical trials: race, sex, and age based disparities. JAMA 291(22):2720–2726CrossRefPubMed

Pew Research Center. (Updated as new data is available). Health fact sheet. Retrieved from Pew Research Center: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/health-fact-sheet/

Atkinson ML, Saperstein SL, Massett H, Leonard CR, Grama L, Manrow R (2008) Using the internet to search for cancer clinical trials: a comparative audit of clinical trial search tools. Contemp Clin Trials 29(4):555–564. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2008.01.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Utami D, Bickmore TW, Barry B, Paasche-Orlow MK (2014) Health literacy and usability of clinical trial search engines. J Health Commun 19:190–204. doi:10.1080/10810730.2014.938842 CrossRefPubMed

National Center For Education Statistics (2003) National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/naal/

The Joint Commission (2007) What did the doctor say? Improving health literacy to protect patient safety. The Joint Commission, Oak Brook

Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C (2006) The health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy (NCES 2006–483). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC

Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K (2011) Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 155:97–107. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Osborn CY, Paasche-Orlow MK, Davis TC, Wolf MS (2007) An overlooked factor in understanding HIV health disparities. Am J Prev Med 33:374–378. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.07.022 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Paasche-Orlow MK, Wolf MS (2007) The causal pathways linking health literacy to health outcomes. Am J Health Behav 31(suppl 1):S19–S26. doi:10.5993/AJHB.31.s1.4 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Volandes AE, Paasche-Orlow MK, Gillick MR, Cook EF, Shaykevich S, Abbo ED, Lehmann L (2008) Health literacy not race predicts end-of-life care preferences. J Palliat Med 11:754–762. doi:10.1089/jpm.2007.0224 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Raynor DK, Knapp P, Silcock J, Parkinson B, Feeney K (2011) User-testing as a method for testing the fitness-for-purpose of written medicine information. Patient Educ Couns 83:404–410CrossRefPubMed

14.

Andriesen S (2006) Readability testing of PILs: a new must. Eur Pharm Contrac Autumn 2006:42–44

15.

Monaco V, Krills SK (2003) Online information about cancer clinical trials: evaluating the websites of comprehensive cancer centers. Am Med Inf Assoc Symp Proc 470–474

Title: Evaluating the Use of Plain Language in a Cancer Clinical Trial Website/App
Authors: Paula L. Schultz
Regina Carlisle
Chesley Cheatham
Melissa O’Grady
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Cancer Education / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0885-8195
Electronic ISSN: 1543-0154
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-016-0994-5

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Educational Needs of Oncology Practitioners in a Regional Cancer Center in the Middle East—Improving the Content of Smoking Cessation Training Programs

The Perceptions and Expectations of Older Women in the Establishment of the Senior Women’s Breast Cancer Clinic (SWBCC): a Needs Assessment Study

Survivorship Challenges and Information Needs after Radiotherapy for Oral Cancer

“Others Like Me”. An Approach to the Use of the Internet and Social Networks in Adolescents and Young Adults Diagnosed with Cancer

Cancer Risk Factor Knowledge Among Young Adults

Development and Evaluation of a Hematology-Oriented Clinical Research Training Program in Latin America

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer