Cancer patients' decision making and trial-entry preferences: the effects of "framing" information about short-term toxicity and long-term survival.

The study purpose was to determine whether the framing of treatment information influenced patients' reported preferences for participating in treatment decision making and for trial entry. Ninety cancer patients read either neutrally-, positively-, or negatively-framed information about a chemotherapeutic treatment, then indicated their preferences for participating in the treatment decision, and whether they would participate in a clinical trial incorporating this protocol. There was no difference across information groups in preferences for participating in treatment decision making or willingness to enter such a clinical trial. Preference for participation in treatment decision making was significantly related to age (t = 2.54; p = 0.022), sex (x2 = 3.89; p = 0.05), and education (t = 2.54; p = 0.018); trial entry preferences were unrelated to these demographic variables. These results imply that, in this clinical context, attitudes towards participation in treatment decision making may be associated with characteristics of the patient, and attitudes towards trial entry may be dependent upon the clinical characteristics of a particular trial, but neither set of attitudes is influenced by the framing of protocol information.

Cancer patients' evaluations of their current health states: the influences of expectations, comparisons, actual health status, and mood.

A study was done to determine the extent to which patients' subjective evaluations of their current health are determined by their expectations, their actual health, and how they compare themselves with others. At the initiation of radiation therapy, 61 laryngeal cancer patients described the health status they expected at the end of therapy, using standardized and individualized dimensions. Objective summative scores were derived for these descriptions. At the end of therapy, these respondents described their current health status and the status they believed others their age were experiencing, on the same dimensions, and objective summative scores were derived for these actual and social comparison states. Rating scales and standard gambles were used to obtain values and utilities ("subjective evaluations") for current health at the end of therapy. Multiple linear regression was used to determine the extent to which variation in the subjective evaluations was explained by the objective scores for actual, expected, and social comparison states, under these different methodologic conditions. Actual health state was a consistently significant predictor. Most variance was explained in the model using individualized dimensions and value scores (r2 = 46.0%). Further investigation is needed to determine whether differences in the amounts of variance explained are due to aversion to gambling, dimension salience, order effects, or respondent fatigue.

Patients' willingness to enter clinical trials: measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation.

Patients who agree and those who refuse clinical trial entry may differ in attitudes towards decision control and the benefits associated with the trial arms. These differences, if they exist, have implications for the process of obtaining informed consent and for the generalization of the results of a clinical trial. This paper describes the development and initial application of methods designed to detect such differences. Developmental work involved creating an inventory of instruments designed to determine patients' attitudes towards participating in treatment decision making, permitting random selection of treatment, and undertaking the risks and benefits associated with the various treatments in a trial. Initial application involved modifying these instruments in terms of an actual chemotherapeutic trial for colonic adenocarcinoma, seeking responses to these measures from 60 non-eligible colorectal cancer patients, then determining whether those who would agree to trial entry differed systematically on these measures from those who indicated that they would refuse such a trial. Twenty-five of the respondents reported that, if faced with the actual decision, they would agree to trial entry: 35 would refuse. Refusers demanded more participation in decision making (Chi-square; P = 0.01) and a greater increment in treatment benefit (t-test; P = 0.0001). Twenty-two of the 35 refusers reported aversion to randomization as their primary reason for trial refusal. Since their particular content can be modified, these measures may be applicable to all clinical trials. They could be used to study the reasons patients accept or refuse trial entry and to determine if agreer-refuser attitude differences undermine the generalizability of a trials results.