Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Patients’ reasoning regarding the decision to participate in clinical cancer trials: an interview study

Authors: Pia Dellson, Kerstin Nilsson, Helena Jernström, Christina Carlsson

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Clinical cancer trials are crucial for the implementation of new treatments in the clinical setting, but it is equally crucial that patients are given the opportunity to make a well-informed decision about participation. The inclusion process is complex, including both oral and written information about the trial. The process of patients’ decision-making regarding clinical cancer trials has not yet been sufficiently studied. This interview study aims to explore the process of patients’ reasoning regarding the decision to participate in a clinical cancer trial.

Methods

The study is based on 27 individual face-to-face interviews with patients who had decided to participate in a clinical cancer trial. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim and then analysed using inductive content analysis.

Results

Content analysis revealed 17 subthemes grouped into five themes: (1) an unhesitating decision to participate; (2) a decision based on flimsy grounds and guided by emotion; (3) feeling safe and secure with my decision; (4) faced with a choice versus what choice do I have? and (5) hoping for help while helping others. The decision to participate in a clinical cancer trial was often immediate and guided by emotions, based on a trusting relationship with healthcare personnel rather than on careful reading of written information. Palliative patients, in particular, sometimes had unrealistic beliefs about the effectiveness of the trial treatment.

Conclusions

It is vital that the decision to participate in a clinical cancer trial is preceded by an honest dialogue about possible positive and negative effects of the trial treatments, including other options such as supportive care in the palliative setting. Our findings also raise the questions of how important written information is for the decision-making process and also whether genuine informed consent is possible. To reach a higher degree of informed consent, it is most important that the oral information is given in a thorough and unbiased manner.
Literature
1.
go back to reference World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310:2191–4. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310:2191–4.
2.
go back to reference Dellson P, Nilbert M, Bendahl PO, Malmstrom P, Carlsson C. Towards optimised information about clinical trials; identification and validation of key issues in collaboration with cancer patient advocates. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2011;20:445–54.CrossRef Dellson P, Nilbert M, Bendahl PO, Malmstrom P, Carlsson C. Towards optimised information about clinical trials; identification and validation of key issues in collaboration with cancer patient advocates. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2011;20:445–54.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Dellson P, Nilbert M, Carlsson C. Patient representatives' views on patient information in clinical cancer trials. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:36.CrossRef Dellson P, Nilbert M, Carlsson C. Patient representatives' views on patient information in clinical cancer trials. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:36.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004;292:1593–601.CrossRef Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004;292:1593–601.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Juraskova I, Butow P, Lopez AL, Seccombe M, Boyle F, McCarthy N, et al. Improving informed consent in clinical trials: successful piloting of a decision aid. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1443–4 author reply 4.CrossRef Juraskova I, Butow P, Lopez AL, Seccombe M, Boyle F, McCarthy N, et al. Improving informed consent in clinical trials: successful piloting of a decision aid. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1443–4 author reply 4.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Dear RF, Barratt AL, Askie LM, Butow PN, McGeechan K, Crossing S, et al. Impact of a cancer clinical trials web site on discussions about trial participation: a cluster randomized trial. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:1912–8.CrossRef Dear RF, Barratt AL, Askie LM, Butow PN, McGeechan K, Crossing S, et al. Impact of a cancer clinical trials web site on discussions about trial participation: a cluster randomized trial. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:1912–8.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Bergenmar M, Johansson H, Wilking N. Levels of knowledge and perceived understanding among participants in cancer clinical trials - factors related to the informed consent procedure. Clin Trials. 2011;8:77–84.CrossRef Bergenmar M, Johansson H, Wilking N. Levels of knowledge and perceived understanding among participants in cancer clinical trials - factors related to the informed consent procedure. Clin Trials. 2011;8:77–84.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:139–47.CrossRef Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:139–47.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:485–93.CrossRef Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:485–93.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Harrop E, Noble S, Edwards M, Sivell S, Moore B, Nelson A, FRAGMATIC Trial Management Group (TMG). I didn’t really understand it, I just thought it’d help: exploring the motivations, understandings and experiences of patients with advanced lung cancer participating in a non-placebo clinical IMP trial. Trials. 2016;17:329.CrossRef Harrop E, Noble S, Edwards M, Sivell S, Moore B, Nelson A, FRAGMATIC Trial Management Group (TMG). I didn’t really understand it, I just thought it’d help: exploring the motivations, understandings and experiences of patients with advanced lung cancer participating in a non-placebo clinical IMP trial. Trials. 2016;17:329.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Mills N, Donovan JL, Smith M, Jacoby A, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. Perceptions of equipoise are crucial to trial participation: a qualitative study of men in the ProtecT study. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:272–82.CrossRef Mills N, Donovan JL, Smith M, Jacoby A, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. Perceptions of equipoise are crucial to trial participation: a qualitative study of men in the ProtecT study. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:272–82.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Biedrzycki BA. Decision making for cancer clinical trial participation: a systematic review. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2010;37:E387–99.CrossRef Biedrzycki BA. Decision making for cancer clinical trial participation: a systematic review. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2010;37:E387–99.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Biedrzycki BA. Factors and outcomes of decision making for cancer clinical trial participation. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2011;38:542–52.CrossRef Biedrzycki BA. Factors and outcomes of decision making for cancer clinical trial participation. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2011;38:542–52.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Bell JA, Balneaves LG. Cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation: an integrative review with implications for patients’ relational autonomy. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:1169–96.CrossRef Bell JA, Balneaves LG. Cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation: an integrative review with implications for patients’ relational autonomy. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:1169–96.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Godskesen TM, Kihlbom U, Nordin K, Silen M, Nygren P. Differences in trial knowledge and motives for participation among cancer patients in phase 3 clinical trials. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016;25:516–23.CrossRef Godskesen TM, Kihlbom U, Nordin K, Silen M, Nygren P. Differences in trial knowledge and motives for participation among cancer patients in phase 3 clinical trials. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016;25:516–23.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Silverman D. Doing qualitative research. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2017. Silverman D. Doing qualitative research. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2017.
17.
go back to reference Dicicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF. The qualitative research interview. Med Educ. 2006;40:314–21.CrossRef Dicicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF. The qualitative research interview. Med Educ. 2006;40:314–21.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Graneheim UH, Lindgren BM, Lundman B. Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;56:29–34.CrossRef Graneheim UH, Lindgren BM, Lundman B. Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;56:29–34.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24:105–12.CrossRef Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24:105–12.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Wright JR, Whelan TJ, Schiff S, Dubois S, Crooks D, Haines PT, et al. Why cancer patients enter randomized clinical trials: exploring the factors that influence their decision. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4312–8.CrossRef Wright JR, Whelan TJ, Schiff S, Dubois S, Crooks D, Haines PT, et al. Why cancer patients enter randomized clinical trials: exploring the factors that influence their decision. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4312–8.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.
22.
go back to reference Evans JS. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:255–78.CrossRef Evans JS. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:255–78.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Yang ZJ, McComas KA, Gay GK, Leonard JP, Dannenberg AJ, Dillon H. Comparing decision making between cancer patients and the general population: thoughts, emotions, or social influence? J Health Commun. 2012;17:477–94.CrossRef Yang ZJ, McComas KA, Gay GK, Leonard JP, Dannenberg AJ, Dillon H. Comparing decision making between cancer patients and the general population: thoughts, emotions, or social influence? J Health Commun. 2012;17:477–94.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Koitsalu M, Eklund M, Adolfsson J, Gronberg H, Brandberg Y. Effects of pre-notification, invitation length, questionnaire length and reminder on participation rate: a quasi-randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:3.CrossRef Koitsalu M, Eklund M, Adolfsson J, Gronberg H, Brandberg Y. Effects of pre-notification, invitation length, questionnaire length and reminder on participation rate: a quasi-randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:3.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Shannon-Dorcy K, Drevdahl DJ. ‘I Had Already Made Up My Mind’: Patients and Caregivers’ Perspectives on Making the Decision to Participate in Research at a US Cancer Referral Center. Cancer Nurs. 2011;34:428–33.CrossRef Shannon-Dorcy K, Drevdahl DJ. ‘I Had Already Made Up My Mind’: Patients and Caregivers’ Perspectives on Making the Decision to Participate in Research at a US Cancer Referral Center. Cancer Nurs. 2011;34:428–33.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Schaefer KM, Ladd E, Gergits MA, Gyauch L. Backing and forthing: the process of decision making by women considering participation in a breast cancer prevention trial. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2001;28:703–9.PubMed Schaefer KM, Ladd E, Gergits MA, Gyauch L. Backing and forthing: the process of decision making by women considering participation in a breast cancer prevention trial. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2001;28:703–9.PubMed
27.
go back to reference Jenkins V, Fallowfield L. Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:1783–8.CrossRef Jenkins V, Fallowfield L. Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:1783–8.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Madsen SM, Holm S, Riis P. Attitudes towards clinical research among cancer trial participants and nonparticipants: an interview study using a Grounded Theory approach. J Med Ethics. 2007;33:234–40.CrossRef Madsen SM, Holm S, Riis P. Attitudes towards clinical research among cancer trial participants and nonparticipants: an interview study using a Grounded Theory approach. J Med Ethics. 2007;33:234–40.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Weeks JC, Catalano PJ, Cronin A, Finkelman MD, Mack JW, Keating NL, et al. Patients’ expectations about effects of chemotherapy for advanced cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1616–25.CrossRef Weeks JC, Catalano PJ, Cronin A, Finkelman MD, Mack JW, Keating NL, et al. Patients’ expectations about effects of chemotherapy for advanced cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1616–25.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Miller VA, Cousino M, Leek AC, Kodish ED. Hope and persuasion by physicians during informed consent. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3229–35.CrossRef Miller VA, Cousino M, Leek AC, Kodish ED. Hope and persuasion by physicians during informed consent. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3229–35.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Godskesen T, Kihlbom U. “I have a lot of pills in my bag, you know”: institutional norms in the provision of hope in phase I clinical cancer trials. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13:679–82.CrossRef Godskesen T, Kihlbom U. “I have a lot of pills in my bag, you know”: institutional norms in the provision of hope in phase I clinical cancer trials. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13:679–82.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, Gallagher ER, Admane S, Jackson VA, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:733–42.CrossRef Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, Gallagher ER, Admane S, Jackson VA, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:733–42.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Godskesen T, Hansson MG, Nygren P, Nordin K, Kihlbom U. Hope for a cure and altruism are the main motives behind participation in phase 3 clinical cancer trials. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2015;24:133–41.CrossRef Godskesen T, Hansson MG, Nygren P, Nordin K, Kihlbom U. Hope for a cure and altruism are the main motives behind participation in phase 3 clinical cancer trials. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2015;24:133–41.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference McCann SK, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA. Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials. 2010;11:31.CrossRef McCann SK, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA. Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials. 2010;11:31.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Cox K. Researching research: patients’ experiences of participation in phase I and II anti-cancer drug trials. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 1999;3:143–52.CrossRef Cox K. Researching research: patients’ experiences of participation in phase I and II anti-cancer drug trials. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 1999;3:143–52.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Godskesen T, Nygren P, Nordin K, Hansson M, Kihlbom U. Phase 1 clinical trials in end-stage cancer: patient understanding of trial premises and motives for participation. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:3137–42.CrossRef Godskesen T, Nygren P, Nordin K, Hansson M, Kihlbom U. Phase 1 clinical trials in end-stage cancer: patient understanding of trial premises and motives for participation. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:3137–42.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications; 1985. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications; 1985.
38.
go back to reference Houghton C, Casey D, Shaw D, Murphy K. Rigour in qualitative case-study research. Nurs Res. 2013;20:12–7.CrossRef Houghton C, Casey D, Shaw D, Murphy K. Rigour in qualitative case-study research. Nurs Res. 2013;20:12–7.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf. 2004;22:63–75. Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf. 2004;22:63–75.
Metadata
Title
Patients’ reasoning regarding the decision to participate in clinical cancer trials: an interview study
Authors
Pia Dellson
Kerstin Nilsson
Helena Jernström
Christina Carlsson
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2916-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue