Patient perspectives on the barriers associated with medication adherence to oral chemotherapy.

Purpose Appropriate use of oral chemotherapy is a challenge for patients and clinicians. The purpose of this study was to analyze cancer patients' use of oral chemotherapies and identify opportunities to improve adherence. Methods We developed a 30-question survey to address frequency and reasons for reducing/skipping doses; sources of information for oral chemotherapy use; perceived importance of food-drug effects; and ease of understanding labeling directions. Results Ninety-three patients taking oral chemotherapies with chronic myeloid leukemia, renal cell carcinoma, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer completed the survey. This was a well-educated population with 69% (n = 62) having completed some college; 51% (n = 47) female and 59% (n = 54) older than 50 years of age. Thirty percent of patients reported forgetting to take their oral chemotherapy at least "sometimes". Younger patients (<50 vs. ≥50, p = 0.002), shorter treatment duration (<6 vs. ≥6 months p = 0.03), or with chronic myeloid leukemia (vs. other diagnoses, p = 0.015) forget to take their oral chemotherapy at higher rates. Twenty-three percent (n = 21) indicated they intentionally skipped their oral chemotherapies and 38% (n = 8) of those did not inform their physicians. Forty-one percent (n = 28) taking drugs with significant food-drug effects did not think about their last meal before taking their oral chemotherapy and 80% (n = 55) did not understand the potential interactions. Additionally, 39% (n = 36/92) never looked at labeling and 15% (n = 14/91) had difficulty understanding label directions. Conclusion There are three main barriers associated with appropriate use of oral chemotherapies: misunderstanding about the timing of drug with food; stopping drug without informing physicians; and difficulty understanding labeling directions. A multipronged approach is needed to optimize communication of directions for optimal oral chemotherapy use.

Genomics education for the public: perspectives of genomic researchers and ELSI advisors.

AIMS: For more than two decades genomic education of the public has been a significant challenge. As genomic information becomes integrated into daily life and routine clinical care, the need for public education is even more critical. We conducted a pilot study to learn how genomic researchers and ethical, legal, and social implications advisors who were affiliated with large-scale genomic variation studies have approached the issue of educating the public about genomics. METHODS/RESULTS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with researchers and advisors associated with the SNP/HAPMAP studies and the Cancer Genome Atlas Study. Respondents described approach(es) associated with educating the public about their study. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed by team review. Although few respondents described formal educational efforts, most provided recommendations for what should/could be done, emphasizing the need for an overarching entity(s) to take responsibility to lead the effort to educate the public. Opposing views were described related to: who this should be; the overall goal of the educational effort; and the educational approach. Four thematic areas emerged: What is the rationale for educating the public about genomics?; Who is the audience?; Who should be responsible for this effort?; and What should the content be? Policy issues associated with these themes included the need to agree on philosophical framework(s) to guide the rationale, content, and target audiences for education programs; coordinate previous/ongoing educational efforts; and develop a centralized knowledge base. Suggestions for next steps are presented. CONCLUSION: A complex interplay of philosophical, professional, and cultural issues can create impediments to genomic education of the public. Many challenges, however, can be addressed by agreement on a guiding philosophical framework(s) and identification of a responsible entity(s) to provide leadership for developing/overseeing an appropriate infrastructure to support the coordination/integration/sharing and evaluation of educational efforts, benefiting consumers and professionals.

IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research.

PURPOSE: Return of individual research results from genomic studies is a hotly debated ethical issue in genomic research. However, the perspective of key stakeholders-institutional review board (IRB) professionals-has been missing from this dialogue. This study explores the positions and experiences of IRB members and staff regarding this issue. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 31 IRB professionals at six sites across the United States. RESULTS: IRB professionals agreed that research results should be returned to research participants when results are medically actionable but only if the participants want to know the results. Many respondents expected researchers to address the issue of return of results (ROR) in the IRB application and informed-consent document. Many respondents were not comfortable with their expertise in genomics research and only a few described actual experiences in addressing ROR. Although participants agreed that guidelines would be helpful, most were reticent to develop them in isolation. Even where IRB guidance exists (e.g., Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) lab certification required for return), in practice, the guidance has been overruled to allow ROR (e.g., no CLIA lab performs the assay). CONCLUSION: An IRB-researcher partnership is needed to help inform responsible and feasible institutional approaches to returning research results.