Factors associated with breast cancer clinical trials participation and enrollment at a large academic medical center. Effects of disclosing financial interests on attitudes toward clinical research. An educational video to increase clinical trials enrollment among lung cancer patients. Impact of random assignment on study outcome: an empirical examination. Factors affecting general practitioner involvement in a randomised controlled trial in primary care. Experiences of randomization: interviews with patients and clinicians in the SPCG-IV trial. The reporting of methodological factors in randomized controlled trials and the association with a journal policy to promote adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Factors that predict the referral of breast cancer patients onto clinical trials by their surgeons and medical oncologists. Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes.
The practice patterns of medical oncologists at a large National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center in Detroit, MI were evaluated to better understand factors associated with accrual to breast cancer clinical trials.
                From 1996 to 1997, physicians completed surveys on 319 of 344 newly evaluated female breast cancer patients. The 19-item survey included clinical data, whether patients were offered clinical trial (CT) participation and enrollment, and when applicable, reasons why they were not. Multivariate analyses using logistic regression were performed to evaluate predictors of an offer and enrollment.
                The patients were 57% white, 32% black, and 11% other/unknown race. One hundred six (33%) were offered participation and 36 (34%) were enrolled. In multivariate analysis, CTs were less likely offered to older women (mean age, 52 years for those offered v 57 years for those not offered; P =.0005) and black women (21% of blacks offered v 42% of whites; P =.0009). Women with stage 1 disease, poor performance status, and those who were previously diagnosed were also less likely to be offered trials. None of these factors were significant predictors of enrollment. Women were not offered trials because of ineligibility (57%), lack of available trials (41%), and noncompliance (2%). Reasons for failed enrollment included patient refusal (88%) and failed eligibility (12%).
                It is important for cooperative groups to design studies that will accommodate a broader spectrum of patients. Further work is needed to assess ways to improve communication about breast cancer CT participation to all eligible women. The effects of disclosing financial interests to potential research participants are not well understood.
                To examine the effects of financial interest disclosures on potential research participants' attitudes toward clinical research.
                Computerized experiment conducted with 3,623 adults in the United States with either diabetes mellitus or asthma, grouped by lesser and greater severity. Respondents read a description of a hypothetical clinical trial relevant to their diagnosis that included a financial disclosure statement. Respondents received 1 of 5 disclosure statements.
                Willingness to participate in the hypothetical clinical trial, relative importance of information about the financial interest, change in trust after reading the disclosure statement, surprise regarding the financial interest, and perceived effect of the financial interest on the quality of the clinical trial.
                Willingness to participate in the hypothetical clinical trial did not differ substantially among the types of financial disclosures. Respondents viewed the disclosed information as less important than other factors in deciding to participate. Disclosures were associated with some respondents trusting the researchers less, although trust among some respondents increased. Most respondents were not surprised to learn of financial interests. Researchers owning equity were viewed as more troubling than researchers who were compensated for the costs of research through per capita payments.
                Aside from a researcher holding an equity interest, the disclosure to potential research participants of financial interests in research, as recommended in recent policies, is unlikely to affect willingness to participate in research. Only 3 to 5% of new adult cancer patients participate in clinical trials nationwide. The lack of knowledge and awareness about clinical trials is a significant barrier to clinical trials participation. A randomized trial was conducted to test the effect of an educational video on positively changing patients' knowledge and attitudes regarding clinical trials and thereby increasing enrollment rates.
                Lung cancer patients were randomized to viewing either an 18-minute video about clinical trials before first clinic appointment or to standard care. Participants completed a baseline and 2-week postintervention survey to assess their knowledge and attitudes toward trials participation. Fisher's exact test tests, t tests, and regression were used to compare patient characteristics and outcomes between arms.
                Of 145 subjects randomized, 126 (63/arm) satisfied all inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. A linear regression showed that the video intervention was significantly associated with patients' self-assessed likelihood to enroll score measured at 2-week follow-up (p = 0.019). Although statistically insignificant, enrollment rates were found to be higher in the intervention arm for therapeutic trials alone (17.5% versus 11.1%) and for therapeutic and nontherapeutic trials combined (25.4% versus 15.9%).
                The brief educational video seems to be effective in positively changing lung cancer patients' attitudes about participation in clinical trials. Higher enrollment rates were also observed in the intervention group but the differences did not reach statistical significance. These findings suggest a potential impact of the educational video on clinical trial enrollment; however, larger studies are needed to confirm these findings. Sixty research investigations published in the biomedical literature were analyzed to examine the effect of design attributes on outcome. All 60 studies included a controlled trial involving a pretest, a therapeutic intervention, and a posttest across at least two groups. Thirty of the trials used random assignment of participants to treatment or control conditions and 30 trials employed some nonrandom method of subject assignment. Trial results were aggregated and evaluated by comparing effect sizes for the primary statistical test of the hypothesis. Data analysis revealed that the trial results, as measured by effect size, did not vary across therapeutic trials using random assignment versus those using nonrandom allocation of subjects. The impact of design attributes in the interpretation of multiple clinical trials addressing a similar research question is examined. The argument is made that various design attributes frequently associated with methodological quality should be considered as important moderator variables and their influence on trial outcome should not be assumed a priori but rather examined empirically. To investigate factors associated with patient recruitment by general practitioners (GPs) in a randomised controlled trial in primary care.
                Cross sectional survey of 100 GPs who had agreed to recruit patients for a randomised controlled trial. A postal questionnaire was sent to the 100 GPs to collect information on factors associated with recruitment in the randomised controlled trial.
                The response rate to the survey was 97%. GPs who reported that practice nurses were involved in the research project were significantly more likely to recruit patients into the trial. Age, sex, membership of an independent practitioner association (IPA), number of half days worked, and the number of GPs working in a practice were not associated with recruitment.
                Involvement of practice nurses together with GPs may improve recruitment of patients in randomised controlled trials in primary care in New Zealand. Recruitment of both patients and clinicians to randomized trials is difficult. Low participation carries the risk of terminating studies early and making them invalid owing to insufficient statistical power. This study investigated patients' and clinicians' experiences of randomization with the aim of facilitating trial participation in the future.
                This was a qualitative study using content analysis. Patients offered to participate in a randomized trial and randomizing clinicians were interviewed. Five participants, four non-participants and five randomizing clinicians were interviewed, 2-8 years from randomization.
                Clinicians used strategies in interaction with the patients to facilitate decision making. Patients' attitudes differed and experiences of relatives or friends were often stated as reasons for treatment preferences. Patients described that letting chance decide treatment was a difficult barrier to overcome for randomization. The clinicians used a number of different strategies perceived to make randomization more acceptable to their patients. The clinicians' own motivation for randomizing patients for trials depended on the medical relevance of the study question and the clinicians' major obstacle was to maintain equipoise over time. Regular meetings with the study group helped to maintain equipoise and motivation.
                To establish a good platform for randomization the clinician needs to know about the patient's treatment preferences and the patient's attitude concerning the role of the clinician to facilitate decision making. The strategies used by the clinicians were perceived as helpful and could be tested in an intervention study. The "Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials" (CONSORT) was developed to improve the suboptimal reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, little is known about the quality of reporting since this publication. We undertook an observational study to determine the quality of reporting key methodological factors in RCTs since the publication of the CONSORT statement and if a journal policy to promote adherence to the CONSORT checklist was associated with superior reporting. We recorded the reporting of 11 key methodological factors in 105 RCTs from 29 medical journals published subsequent to the CONSORT statement. We examined the quality of reporting in relation to whether a journal was a "CONSORT promoter" as defined by inclusion of the CONSORT checklist in a journal's "information to authors" section or a requirement that authors, manuscript reviewers, or copy editors complete the CONSORT checklist. Multivariate analysis controlled for journal impact factor, study outcome, and time of publication. Six of the 11 methodological factors were reported <50% of the time. The number of methodological factors reported was greater in CONSORT promoters than in journals not promoting CONSORT in both unadjusted (6.0 and 5.1, respectively, p-value = 0.03) and adjusted (6.4 and 4.8 of the 11 methodological factors, respectively, p-value = 0.0001) analyses. While journals that promote CONSORT demonstrate superior reporting of RCTs, persistent inadequacies in reporting remain. Until these inadequacies are resolved health-care providers will remain limited in their ability to make informed inferences about the validity of the studies upon which they base their clinical practice. To improve understanding of physicians' reluctance to refer patients to clinical trials.
                This study was conducted in a large metropolitan region from 1993 to 1995 using a two-staged population-based sampling strategy. A total of 147 physicians discussed 245 patient cases and their own knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward clinical trials.
                Ninety-three patients (38. 0%) were offered a trial, and 49 (52.7%) of them agreed to participate. Forty-five patients (18.4%) actually received their adjuvant therapy on trial. Older patients and those with a poorer prognosis were less likely to be referred. Patients who delayed their decision were more than three times as likely to participate in a trial and more than eight times as likely to participate when they were reported to be actively involved in making the decision. Generally, physicians in university settings and who had formal support from a cooperative group were more likely to refer patients to trials. More specifically, surgeons referred more patients to trials when they felt comfortable explaining trials or believed that treatment should not stray from protocol. Oncologists were less likely to make referrals if they perceived the paperwork to be onerous or entry requirements to be too stringent. Surgeons' participation in recommending adjuvant therapy to patients resulted in more trial referrals unless they treated their patients with tamoxifen.
                (1) Physicians still need to overcome attitudinal and practical barriers to trial participation, (2) more support for physicians is needed, (3) surgeons may play a pivotal role in the recruitment of patients to adjuvant therapy trials, and (4) garnering patient enthusiasm for trial participation and involving them in the choice of adjuvant therapy may be key components to increasing trial enrollment. An intervention was developed to increase patient involvement in care. Using a treatment algorithm as a guide, patients were helped to read their medical record and coached to ask questions and negotiate medical decisions with their physicians during a 20-minute session before their regularly scheduled visit. In a randomized controlled trial we compared this intervention with a standard educational session of equal length in a clinic for patients with ulcer disease. Six to eight weeks after the trial, patients in the experimental group reported fewer limitations in physical and role-related activities (p less than 0.05), preferred a more active role in medical decision-making, and were as satisfied with their care as the control group. Analysis of audiotapes of physician-patient interactions showed that patients in the experimental group were twice as effective as control patients in obtaining information from physicians (p less than 0.05). Results of the intervention included increased involvement in the interaction with the physician, fewer limitations imposed by the disease on patients' functional ability, and increased preference for active involvement in medical decision-making.
The impact of factors varied across studies. Researchers need to be aware that aspects of the design and conduct of trials can affect clinicians' willingness to invite patients to participate. Further research is needed.