Communication of patients' and family members' ethical concerns to their healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about communication between patients, families, and healthcare providers regarding ethical concerns that patients and families experience in the course of illness and medical care. To address this gap in the literature, we surveyed patients and family members to learn about their ethical concerns and the extent to which they discussed them with their healthcare providers. METHODS: We surveyed adult, English-speaking patients and family members receiving inpatient care in five hospitals in the Washington DC-Baltimore metropolitan area from July 2017 to March 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency, comfortableness, and helpfulness of discussions regarding ethical concerns experienced when sick or receiving medical care. Univariable and multivariable stepwise logistic regression models were used to identify associations between healthcare provider and respondent characteristics and attitudes and (1) the likelihood of speaking to a healthcare provider about their ethical concern and (2) their level of comfort during these discussions. RESULTS: Of 468 respondents who experienced ethical issues, 299 (64%) reported discussing the situation with a member of their healthcare team; 74% (197/265) of respondents who had such a discussion found the discussion comfortable, and 77% (176/230) of respondents found the discussion helpful. To make discussions more comfortable and helpful, respondents proposed suggestions in open-ended responses involving (1) content and quality of communication; (2) positive healthcare provider qualities such as empathy, open-mindedness, knowledge, honesty, and trustworthiness; and (3) other contextual factors including having adequate time and available resources. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and families often have ethical concerns that they discuss with clinicians, and they want clinicians to be routinely receptive and attentive to such discussions.

Ethical Concerns of Patients and Family Members Arising During Illness or Medical Care.

Patients and family members (N = 671) were surveyed in five Mid-Atlantic U.S. hospitals to ascertain the number and kinds of ethical concerns they are presently experiencing or have previously experienced while being sick or receiving medical care. Seventy percent of participants had at least one (range 0-14) type of ethical concern or question. The most commonly experienced concerns pertained to being unsure how to plan ahead or complete an advance directive (29.4%), being unsure whether someone in the family was able to make their own decisions (29.2%), deciding about limiting life-sustaining treatments (28.6%), wondering about disclosing personal medical information to others in the family (26.4%) and not being sure whether to undergo treatment because of cost (26.2%). Most were interested to some degree in getting help from ethics consultants in the future (76.6%). Given this prevalence, common concerns might usefully be addressed systematically, rather than exclusively on a case-by-case basis.

Is Oligometastatic Cancer Curable? A Survey of Oncologist Perspectives, Decision Making, and Communication.

Purpose: Oligometastatic disease (OMD) refers to a limited state of metastatic cancer, which potentially derives benefit from local treatments. Given the relative novelty of this paradigm, oncologist perspectives on OMD are not well established. We thus explored oncologist views on curability of and treatment recommendations for patients with OMD. Methods and Materials: We developed a survey focused on oncologist views of 3 subtypes of OMD: synchronous, oligorecurrent, and oligoprogressive. Eligible participants included medical and radiation oncologists at 2 large cancer centers invited to participate between May and June 2022. Participants were presented with 3 hypothetical patient scenarios and asked about treatment recommendations, rationale, and demographic information. Results: Of 44 respondents, over half (61.4%) agreed that synchronous OMD is curable. A smaller proportion (46.2% and 13.5%) agreed for oligorecurrence and oligoprogression, respectively. When asked whether they use the word "cure" or "curative" in discussing prognosis, 31.8% and 33.3% agreed for synchronous and oligorecurrent OMD, respectively, while 78.4% disagreed for oligoprogression. Views on curability did not significantly affect treatment recommendations. More medical oncologists recommended systemic treatment only compared with radiation oncologists for the synchronous OMD (50.0% vs 5.3%; P < .01) and oligoprogression cases (43.8% vs 10.5%; P = .02), not the oligorecurrent case. There were no significant differences in confidence in treatment recommendations by specialty. Conclusions: In this exploratory study, we found notable divergence in oncologists' views about curability of OMD as well as variability in treatment recommendations, suggesting need for more robust research on outcomes of patients with OMD.

Second malignancy probabilities in patients with prostate cancer treated with whole pelvis radiation therapy versus prostate only radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Whole pelvic radiation therapy (WPRT) may improve outcomes compared with prostate only radiation therapy (PORT) in some subsets of men with prostate cancer, as in the POP-RT trial. However, there is concern about increased risk of adverse effects with WPRT, including the development of radiation-induced second malignancies (SM). Given the rarity of SM, little is known about relative rates of SM between WPRT and PORT. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed of men with nonmetastatic, node-negative prostate cancer with at least 60 months of follow-up using a national database. SM probabilities were compared in men receiving either WPRT or PORT using multivariable logistic models adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Temporal sensitivity analyses stratified by year of diagnosis and length of follow-up were also conducted. RESULTS: Of 50,237 patients in the study, 39,338 (78.4%) received PORT, and 10,899 (21.7%) received WPRT. Median follow-up was 106.2 months (interquartile range 82.32-132.25). Crude probabilities of SM were 9.16% for WPRT and 8.88% for PORT. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for development of SM with PORT versus WPRT was 1.046 (95% confidence interval 0.968-1.130). Temporal sensitivity analyses by stratifying by year of diagnosis and follow-up length also did not demonstrate any significant difference in rates of SM between WPRT and PORT using AORs with WPRT as the referent. CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective analysis of over 50,000 patients did not demonstrate an association between WPRT and an increased probability of SM compared to PORT. Given the findings of POP-RT, the use of WPRT may become widespread for certain subsets of men. Thus, our findings could help guide how we counsel patients deciding between WPRT and PORT and suggest the need for prospective assessment of SM risk with WPRT and PORT.

Patient and Family Descriptions of Ethical Concerns.

Ethically challenging situations routinely arise in the course of illness and healthcare. However, very few studies have surveyed patients and family members about their experiences with ethically challenging situations. To address this gap in the literature, we surveyed patients and family members at three hospitals. We conducted a content analysis of their responses to open-ended questions about their most memorable experience with an ethical concern for them or their family member. Participants (N = 196) described 219 unique ethical experiences that spanned many of the prevailing themes of bioethics, including the patient-physician relationship, end-of-life care, decision-making capacity, healthcare costs, and genetic testing. Participants focused on relational issues in the course of experiencing illness and receiving medical care and concerns regarding the patient-physician encounters. Many concerns arose outside of a healthcare setting. These data indicate areas for improvement for healthcare providers but some concerns may be better addressed outside of the traditional healthcare setting.

Motivations and Decision-Making of Adult Sickle Cell Patients in High-Risk Clinical Research.

Potentially curative but high-risk trials of gene therapy or stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) for sickle cell disease (SCD) pose new opportunities for adults with SCD, many of whom experience significant disease burden and complications with few treatment options, as well as stigma and disparities in care. We explored motivations and decision-making processes of enrollees and decliners of such trials. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 20 enrollees and 6 decliners. Interviews explored participants' SCD experiences, motivations, and decision-making about trial participation, understanding of research-related information, and retrospective reflections. Interviews were analyzed with content analysis. Most identified the purpose of research, risks, and uncertainties of participation. Both enrollees and decliners described deliberative weighing of study risks and potential benefits (especially the prospect of a cure), with heavy factoring of their SCD status, experiences, and desire for a better life. Despite the influence of spirituality/religion and support of family and friends, all described the decision about participation as their own. In some patients, the primary outcome status defined by the trial did not match the patients' perceived outcomes. Patients with negative experiences expressed a desire for greater emphasis on risks and possible outcomes during informed consent. This cohort of adults with SCD were thoughtfully deliberative in their decisions about gene therapy or PBSCT trials. Future participants' decision-making may be enhanced by emphasizing that "successful" scientific outcomes can still involve complications or symptoms and be facilitated by referrals to former research participants and anticipatory discussions.

Understanding people's 'unrealistic optimism' about clinical research participation.

BACKGROUND: Researchers worry that patients in early-phase research experience unrealistic optimism about benefits and risks of participation. The standard measure of unrealistic optimism is the Comparative Risk/Benefit Assessment (CRBA) questionnaire, which asks people to estimate their chances of an outcome relative to others in similar situations. Such a comparative framework may not be a natural way for research participants to think about their chances. OBJECTIVE: To examine how people interpret questions measuring unrealistic optimism and how their interpretations are associated with their responses. METHODS: Using an early-phase cancer trial vignette, we administered the CRBA to 297 adults from the general public. They estimated their comparative chances of risk and benefit (7-point scale: -3 less likely to +3 more likely), then provided rationales for their estimates. RESULTS: For both CRBA benefit and risk questions, about 50% of respondents chose 0 (the 'correct' response of 'average likelihood'), and 50% chose a non-0 response. Respondents' rationales for their estimates showed that overall only about 40%-44% gave comparative rationales, indicating that they interpreted the CRBA as intended. 68.7% of respondents who gave the 'correct' 0 rating gave comparative rationales, whereas only 11.6% of respondents who gave non-0 ratings did so. A similar trend was seen for chances of risk (p<0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: Research participants may not understand comparative benefit and risk questions as intended; attributions of unrealistic optimism may require additional evidence that the respondents' estimates are intended to be comparative.

The ethics of uninsured participants accessing healthcare in biomedical research: A literature review.

Background/aims Sparse literature exists on the challenges and ethical considerations of including people with limited access to healthcare, such as the uninsured and low-income, in clinical research in high-income countries. However, many ethical issues should be considered with respect to working with uninsured and low-income participants in clinical research, including enrollment and retention, ancillary care, and post-trial responsibilities. Attention to the uninsured and low-income is particularly salient in the United States due to the high rates of uninsurance and underinsurance. Thus, we conducted a scoping review on the ethical considerations of biomedical clinical research with uninsured and low-income participants in high-income countries in order to describe what is known and to pinpoint areas of needed research on this issue. Methods MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched using terms that described main concepts of interest (e.g., uninsured, underinsured, access to healthcare, poverty, ethics, compensation, clinical research). Articles were included if they met four inclusion criteria: (1) English, (2) high-income countries context, (3) about research participants who are uninsured or low-income, which limits their access to healthcare, and in biomedical clinical research that either had a prospect of direct medical benefit or was offered to them on the basis of their ill health, and (4) recognizes and/or addresses challenges or ethical considerations of uninsured or low-income participants in biomedical clinical research. Results The searches generated a total of 974 results. Ultimately, 23 papers were included in the scoping review. Of 23 articles, the majority (n = 19) discussed enrollment and retention of uninsured or low-income participants. Several barriers to enrolling uninsured and low-income groups were identified, including limited access to primary or preventive care; lack of access to institutions conducting trials or physicians with enough time or knowledge about trials; overall lack of trust in the government, research, or medical system; and logistical issues. Considerably fewer articles discussed treatment of these participants during the course of research (n = 5) or post-trial responsibilities owed to them (n = 4). Thus, we propose a research agenda that builds upon the existing literature by addressing three broad questions: (1) What is the current status of uninsured research participants in biomedical clinical research in high-income countries? (2) How should uninsured research participants be treated during and after clinical research? (3) How, if at all, should additional protections for uninsured research participants affect their enrollment? Conclusions This review reveals significant gaps in both data and thoughtful analysis on how to ethically involve uninsured research participants. To address these gaps, we propose a research agenda to gather needed data and theoretical analysis that addresses three broad research questions.