How do doctors explain randomised clinical trials to their patients?

As part of a larger study designed to improve doctor-patient communication in randomised clinical trials (RCT), we audiotaped the discussions between doctor and patient in which consent was being obtained for a RCT. This paper reports on 82 discussions conducted by 5 clinical oncologists in both District General and University Hospital outpatient departments. When introducing the subject of trials, uncertainty about treatment decisions was expressed by the doctors in the majority of cases (79, 96.3%). This was most often stated in a general sense (78, 95.1%), but some mentioned personal uncertainty (12, 14.6%), an approach which helps to maintain a trusting doctor-patient relationship. The word randomization was mentioned in 51 (62.2%) consultations, although the process itself was usually described implicitly (78, 95.1%), e.g. by telling the patient that they would be allocated either one or other treatment. Analogies were used in 28 (34.1%) cases to describe the randomisation process. In addition, although treatments and side-effects were described frequently, (68, 82.9%) and (72, 87.8%) respectively, information leaflets about the trials were not given to 23 (28%) patients. The study shows that U.K. clinicians adopt individual methods when providing information and eliciting consent to trials.

Attitudes of patients to randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy.

The aim of this study was to test an instrument which might be useful for doctors in explaining the randomisation procedure to an individual patient. The sample comprised 323 patients with cancer attending for out-patient appointments and/or chemotherapy treatment in two major cancer centres in the U.K. 315 patients completed a self-report questionnaire--The Attitudes to Randomised Trials Questionnaire (ARTQ). The results show that the majority of subjects 287 (91.1%) believe that patients should be asked to take part in medical research, but only 242 (76.8%) would be prepared to take part in a study comparing two treatments. If treatment was randomised, only 141 (44.8%) would agree to participate. When given further information about the randomisation procedure, 119 (68.4%) of the 174 (55.2%) who initially said 'no' to randomisation or who were unsure, would change their minds and take part in a trial. The ARTQ discriminated between three categories of patient with the following prevailing attitudes: (a) those who seem comfortable with the concept of randomisation; (b) those with some concerns, who with fuller explanation are prepared to consider randomisation; and (c) those firmly against randomisation and participation in trials whatever information is provided. Prior knowledge of patients' attitudes might assist communication about trials and encourage more doctors to approach eligible patients.