Financial Concerns About Participation in Clinical Trials Among Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: The decision to enroll in a clinical trial is complex given the uncertain risks and benefits of new approaches. Many patients also have financial concerns. We sought to characterize the association between financial concerns and the quality of decision making about clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a secondary data analysis of a randomized trial of a Web-based educational tool (Preparatory Education About Clinical Trials) designed to improve the preparation of patients with cancer for making decisions about clinical trial enrollment. Patients completed a baseline questionnaire that included three questions related to financial concerns (five-point Likert scales): "How much of a burden on you is the cost of your medical care?," "I'm afraid that my health insurance won't pay for a clinical trial," and "I'm worried that I wouldn't be able to afford the costs of treatment on a clinical trial." Results were summed, with higher scores indicating greater concerns. We used multiple linear regressions to measure the association between concerns and self-reported measures of self-efficacy, preparation for decision making, distress, and decisional conflict in separate models, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred eleven patients completed at least one financial concern question. Of these, 27% were 65 years or older, 58% were female, and 24% had a high school education or less. Greater financial concern was associated with lower self-efficacy and preparation for decision making, as well as with greater decisional conflict and distress, even after adjustment for age, race, sex, education, employment, and hospital location (P < .001 for all models). CONCLUSION: Financial concerns are associated with several psychological constructs that may negatively influence decision quality regarding clinical trials. Greater attention to patients' financial needs and concerns may reduce distress and improve patient decision making.

Randomized Trial of a Web-Based Intervention to Address Barriers to Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Lack of knowledge and negative attitudes have been identified as barriers to participation in clinical trials by patients with cancer. We developed Preparatory Education About Clinical Trials (PRE-ACT), a theory-guided, Web-based, interactive computer program, to deliver tailored video educational content to patients in an effort to overcome barriers to considering clinical trials as a treatment option. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized clinical trial compared PRE-ACT with a control condition that provided general clinical trials information produced by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in text format. One thousand two hundred fifty-five patients with cancer were randomly allocated before their initial visit with an oncologist to PRE-ACT (n = 623) or control (n = 632). PRE-ACT had three main components: assessment of clinical trials knowledge and attitudinal barriers, values assessment with clarification back to patients, and provision of a video library tailored to address each patient's barriers. Outcomes included knowledge and attitudes and preparation for decision making about clinical trials. RESULTS: Both PRE-ACT and control interventions improved knowledge and attitudes (all P < .001) compared with baseline. Patients randomly allocated to PRE-ACT showed a significantly greater increase in knowledge (P < .001) and a significantly greater decrease in attitudinal barriers (P < .001) than did their control (text-only) counterparts. Participants in both arms significantly increased their preparedness to consider clinical trials (P < .001), and there was a trend favoring the PRE-ACT group (P < .09). PRE-ACT was also associated with greater patient satisfaction than was NCI text alone. CONCLUSION: These data show that patient education before the first oncologist visit improves knowledge, attitudes, and preparation for decision making about clinical trials. Both text and tailored video were effective. The PRE-ACT interactive video program was more effective than NCI text in improving knowledge and reducing attitudinal barriers.

Developing and testing a checklist to enhance quality in clinical ethics consultation.

Checklists have been used to improve quality in many industries, including healthcare. The use of checklists, however, has not been extensively evaluated in clinical ethics consultation. This article seeks to fill this gap by exploring the efficacy of using a checklist in ethics consultation, as tested by an empirical investigation of the use of the checklist at a large academic medical system (Cleveland Clinic). The specific aims of this project are as follows: (1) to improve the quality of ethics consultations by providing reminders to ethics consultants about process steps that are important for most patient-centered ethics consultations, (2) to create consistency in the ethics consultation process across the medical system, and (3) to establish an effective educational tool for trainers and trainees in clinical ethics consultation. The checklist was developed after a thorough literature review and an iterative process of revising and testing by a group of experienced ethics consultants. To pilot test the checklist, it was distributed to 46 ethics consultants. After a six-month pilot period in which ethics professionals used the checklist during their clinical activities, a survey was distributed to all of those who used the checklist. The 10-item survey examined consultants' perceptions regarding the three aims listed above. Of the 25 survey respondents, 11 self-reported as experts in ethics consultation, nine perceived themselves to have mid-level expertise, and five self-reported as novices. The majority (68 percent) of all respondents, regardless of expertise, believed that the checklist could be a "helpful" or "very helpful" tool in the consultation process generally. Novices were more likely than experts to believe that the checklist would be useful in conducting consultations. The limitations of this study include: reduced generalizability given that this project was conducted at one medical system, utilized a small sample size, and used self-reported quality outcome measures. Despite these limitations, to the authors' knowledge this is the first investigation of the use of a checklist systematically to improve quality in ethics consultation. Importantly, our findings shed light on ways this checklist can be used to improve ethics consultation, including its use as an educational tool. The authors hope to test the checklist with consultants in other healthcare systems to explore its usefulness in different healthcare environments.

Empirical bioethics research is a winner, but bioethics mission creep is a false alarm.

While we do not share Evans's view that social science research is needed to shield bioethics from competitive threat, we incorporate and engage in social science research to inform our knowledge base, our clinical practice, and our contributions to the ongoing development of the field.

Family members' requests to extend physiologic support after declaration of brain death: a case series analysis and proposed guidelines for clinical management.

We describe and analyze 13 cases handled by our ethics consultation service (ECS) in which families requested continuation of physiological support for loved ones after death by neurological criteria (DNC) had been declared. These ethics consultations took place between 2005 and 2013. Patients' ages ranged from 14 to 85. Continued mechanical ventilation was the focal intervention sought by all families. The ECS's advice and recommendations generally promoted "reasonable accommodation" of the requests, balancing compassion for grieving families with other ethical and moral concerns such as stewardship of resources, professional integrity, and moral distress. In cases we characterized as finite-goal accommodation, a "reasonable accommodation" strategy proved effective in balancing stakeholders' interests and goals, enabling steady progress toward resolution. When a family objected outright to a declaration of DNC and asked for an indefinite accommodation, the "reasonable accommodation" approach offered clinicians little practical direction, and resolution required definitive action by either the family or the clinical team. Based on our analysis and reflections on these 13 cases, we propose ethically justified and practical guidelines to assist healthcare professionals, administrators, and ECSs faced with similar cases.

Knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy as predictors of preparedness for oncology clinical trials: a mediational model.

OBJECTIVE: This study used the Ottawa Decision Support Framework to evaluate a model examining associations between clinical trial knowledge, attitudinal barriers to participating in clinical trials, clinical trial self-efficacy, and clinical trial preparedness among 1256 cancer patients seen for their first outpatient consultation at a cancer center. As an exploratory aim, moderator effects for gender, race/ethnicity, education, and metastatic status on associations in the model were evaluated. METHODS: . Patients completed measures of cancer clinical trial knowledge, attitudinal barriers, self-efficacy, and preparedness. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to evaluate whether self-efficacy mediated the association between knowledge and barriers with preparedness. RESULTS: . The SEM explained 26% of the variance in cancer clinical trial preparedness. Self-efficacy mediated the associations between attitudinal barriers and preparedness, but self-efficacy did not mediate the knowledge-preparedness relationship. CONCLUSIONS: . Findings partially support the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and suggest that assessing patients' level of self-efficacy may be just as important as evaluating their knowledge and attitudes about cancer clinical trials.

Vascular ligand-receptor mapping by direct combinatorial selection in cancer patients.

Molecules differentially expressed in blood vessels among organs or between damaged and normal tissues, are attractive therapy targets; however, their identification within the human vasculature is challenging. Here we screened a peptide library in cancer patients to uncover ligand-receptors common or specific to certain vascular beds. Surveying ~2.35 x 10(6) motifs recovered from biopsies yielded a nonrandom distribution, indicating that systemic tissue targeting is feasible. High-throughput analysis by similarity search, protein arrays, and affinity chromatography revealed four native ligand-receptors, three of which were previously unrecognized. Two are shared among multiple tissues (integrin α4/annexin A4 and cathepsin B/apolipoprotein E3) and the other two have a restricted and specific distribution in normal tissue (prohibitin/annexin A2 in white adipose tissue) or cancer (RAGE/leukocyte proteinase-3 in bone metastases). These findings provide vascular molecular markers for biotechnology and medical applications.

Accommodating religious beliefs in the ICU: a narrative account of a disputed death.

Despite widespread acceptance in the United States of neurological criteria to determine death, clinicians encounter families who object, often on religious grounds, to the categorization of their loved ones as "brain dead." The concept of "reasonable accommodation" of objections to brain death, promulgated in both state statutes and the bioethics literature, suggests the possibility of compromise between the family's deeply held beliefs and the legal, professional and moral values otherwise directing clinicians to withdraw medical interventions. Relying on narrative to convey the experience of a family and clinical caregivers embroiled in this complex dilemma, the case analyzed here explores the practical challenges and moral ambiguities presented by the concept of reasonable accommodation. Clarifying the term's meaning and boundaries, and identifying guidelines for its clinical implementation, could help to reduce uncertainty for both health care professionals and families and, thereby, the incremental moral distress such uncertainty creates.

Wide variation in content of inpatient do-not-resuscitate order forms used at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in the United States.

GOALS OF WORK: Determining resuscitation status (RS) for inpatients with advanced cancer is emotionally charged and often conflictual. Available data suggest that clinicians have inconsistent practices when establishing and documenting do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Lack of standardization may contribute to ineffective and unclear discussions regarding RS. To inform revisions of DNR order forms used at one comprehensive cancer center, we surveyed National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCICCs) to determine if a standardized approach to documenting inpatient DNR orders exists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a 12-week period in 2002-2003, the 50 NCICCs providing inpatient care were contacted regarding participation in this Institutional Review Board-approved study. Using a 69-item database, inpatient DNR order forms were analyzed for content and elements of process used to establish and document RS. Each form was evaluated by two raters to assess inter-rater reliability. Analysis was descriptive; inter-rater agreement was summarized using the kappa statistic. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty percent (30 out of 50) of NCICCs participated. Eighty percent of responding sites confined the order process exclusively to cardiopulmonary resuscitation and did not include other interventions for possible limitation. Two thirds of responding sites used preformatted order forms specific for establishing inpatient RS; forms varied widely in content and elements of process used to establish and document DNR orders. CONCLUSIONS: NCICCs do not have a standardized approach to establishing and documenting DNR orders. Lack of standardization may reflect the absence of a common understanding of these difficult issues which may contribute to unclear and ineffective communication when addressing RS.

Phase I participants' views of quality of life and trial participation burdens.

PURPOSE: Participants' perception of quality of life (QOL) and respondent burden have significant implications for investigators' ethical responsibilities to their subjects in phase I cancer trials. To address these responsibilities, analysis was conducted on participants' views of their experiences of a phase I trial, including the associated burdens and what constitutes QOL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred potential participants of the endostatin trial were surveyed. Sixteen of the 18 trial participants were interviewed extensively about their experiences on the trial. RESULTS: Participants described 'normality' as a baseline ability to function, be productive, and be free from symptoms of disease and side effects of treatment. Reflecting the relative nontoxicity of the study drug, participants contrasted their current QOL with their negative experience of previous cancer treatments and viewed their QOL as fairly good. However, participants emphasized that indirect and procedural burdens of trial participation had a significant impact on their current QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Candid descriptions of a trial's practical demands, in addition to potential physical complications in a trial, could improve the quality of informed consent.

Ethics guidelines for research with the recently dead.

The objective of the multidisciplinary expert Consensus Panel on Research with the Recently Dead (CPRRD) was to craft ethics guidelines for research with the recently dead. The CPRRD recommends that research with the recently dead: (i) receive scientific and ethical review and oversight; (ii) involve the community of potential research subjects; (iii) be coordinated with organ procurement organizations; (iv) not conflict with organ donation or required autopsy; (v) use procedures respectful of the dead; (vi) be restricted to one procedure per day; (vii) preferably be authorized by first-person consent, though both general advance research directives and surrogate consent are acceptable; (viii) protect confidentiality; (ix) not impose costs on subjects' estates or next of kin and not involve payment; (x) clearly explain ultimate disposition of the body.