Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy

This paper reports on the reasons why patients agreed to or declined entry into randomized trials of cancer following discussions conducted by clinicians in both District General and University Hospitals. Two hundred and four patients completed a 16-item questionnaire following the consultation, of these 112 (55%) were women with breast cancer. Overall results showed that 147 (72.1%) patients accepted entry to a randomized clinical trial (RCT). The main reasons nominated for participating in a trial were that ‘others will benefit’ (23.1%) and ‘trust in the doctor’ (21.1%). One of the main reasons for declining trial entry was that patients were ‘worried about randomization’ (19.6%). There was a significantly higher acceptance rate for trials providing active treatment in every arm 98 (80.6%) compared with those trials with a no treatment arm 46 (60.5%), χ2test P = 0.003. The study outlines a number of factors that appear to influence a patient’s decision to accept or decline entry into an RCT of cancer therapy. An important factor is whether or not the trial offers active treatment in all arms of the study. Communication that promotes trust and confidence in the doctor is also a powerful motivating influence. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaig

Self-perceived quality of life predicts mortality risk better than a multi-biomarker panel, but the combination of both does best

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Associations between measures of subjective health and mortality risk have previously been shown. We assessed the impact and comparative predictive performance of a multi-biomarker panel on this association.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data from 4,261 individuals aged 20-79 years recruited for the population-based Study of Health in Pomerania was used. During an average 9.7 year follow-up, 456 deaths (10.7%) occurred. Subjective health was assessed by SF-12 derived physical (PCS-12) and mental component summaries (MCS-12), and a single-item self-rated health (SRH) question. We implemented Cox proportional-hazards regression models to investigate the association of subjective health with mortality and to assess the impact of a combination of 10 biomarkers on this association. Variable selection procedures were used to identify a parsimonious set of subjective health measures and biomarkers, whose predictive ability was compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, C-statistics, and reclassification methods.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In age- and gender-adjusted Cox models, poor SRH (hazard ratio (HR), 2.07; 95% CI, 1.34-3.20) and low PCS-12 scores (lowest vs. highest quartile: HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.31-2.33) were significantly associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality; an association independent of various covariates and biomarkers. Furthermore, selected subjective health measures yielded a significantly higher C-statistic (0.883) compared to the selected biomarker panel (0.872), whereas a combined assessment showed the highest C-statistic (0.887) with a highly significant integrated discrimination improvement of 1.5% (p < 0.01).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Adding biomarker information did not affect the association of subjective health measures with mortality, but significantly improved risk stratification. Thus, a combined assessment of self-reported subjective health and measured biomarkers may be useful to identify high-risk individuals for intensified monitoring.</p

Biofield Therapies: Helpful or Full of Hype? A Best Evidence Synthesis

Biofield therapies (such as Reiki, therapeutic touch, and healing touch) are complementary medicine modalities that remain controversial and are utilized by a significant number of patients, with little information regarding their efficacy. This systematic review examines 66 clinical studies with a variety of biofield therapies in different patient populations. We conducted a quality assessment as well as a best evidence synthesis approach to examine evidence for biofield therapies in relevant outcomes for different clinical populations. Studies overall are of medium quality, and generally meet minimum standards for validity of inferences. Biofield therapies show strong evidence for reducing pain intensity in pain populations, and moderate evidence for reducing pain intensity hospitalized and cancer populations. There is moderate evidence for decreasing negative behavioral symptoms in dementia and moderate evidence for decreasing anxiety for hospitalized populations. There is equivocal evidence for biofield therapies' effects on fatigue and quality of life for cancer patients, as well as for comprehensive pain outcomes and affect in pain patients, and for decreasing anxiety in cardiovascular patients. There is a need for further high-quality studies in this area. Implications and future research directions are discussed

Describing randomisation: patients' and the public's preferences compared with clinicians' practice

Explaining the concept of randomisation in simple terms to patients during the discussion of randomised clinical trials can be a difficult task for many health care professionals. We report the results of a questionnaire-based survey, using seven descriptions of randomisation taken from Corbett's study. We examined the preferences of the general public and patients towards the descriptions and compared the results with the clinicians' choice. Participants in the survey were 341 lay people without cancer, 200 patients with cancer and 200 oncologists from cancer centres throughout the UK. It was difficult to identify 'the best' way to describe the process of randomisation. The two most favoured statements for patients and members of the public included a very explicit statement that mentioned 'a computer', 'chance' and 'not the doctor's or patient's decision' and a succinct statement that played down the role of 'chance'. Clinicians chose neither of these statements as closely resembling their own practice. Patients and members of the public most disliked the statement 'a computer will perform the equivalent of tossing a coin to allocate you to one of two methods of treatment'. This analogy used by 26% of oncologists, was viewed as trivialising and upsetting in the context of determining treatment for life threatening disease

Quality of Life of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease in 15 Countries

Measuring quality of life (QOL) is fundamental to understanding the impact of disease and treatment on patients' lives. This study aimed to explore QOL in an international sample of adults with congenital heart disease (CHD), the association between patient characteristics and QOL, and international variation in QOL and its relationship to country-specific characteristics. We enrolled 4,028 adults with CHD from 15 countries. QOL was assessed using a linear analog scale (LAS) (0 to 100) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (5 to 35). Patient characteristics included sex, age, marital status, educational level, employment status, CHD complexity, and patient-reported New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. Country-specific characteristics included general happiness and 6 cultural dimensions. Linear mixed models were applied. Median QOL was 80 on the LAS and 27 on the SWLS. Older age, lack of employment, no marriage history, and worse NYHA functional class were associated with lower QOL (p <0.001). Patients from Australia had the highest QOL (LAS: 82) and patients from Japan the lowest (LAS: 72). Happiness scores and cultural dimensions were not associated with variation in QOL after adjustment for patient characteristics and explained only an additional 0.1% of the variance above and beyond patient characteristics (p = 0.56). This large-scale, international study found that overall QOL in adults with CHD was generally good. Variation in QOL was related to patient characteristics but not country-specific characteristics. Hence, patients at risk for poorer QOL can be identified using uniform criteria. General principles for designing interventions to improve QOL can be develope

Psychometric characteristics of health-related quality-of-life questionnaires in oropharyngeal dysphagia

Dysphagia can have severe consequences for the patient's health, influencing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Sound psychometric properties of HRQoL questionnaires are a precondition for assessing the impact of dysphagia, the focus of this study, resulting in recommendations for the appropriate use of these questionnaires in both clinical practice and research contexts. We performed a systematic review starting with a search for and retrieval of all full-text articles on the development of HRQoL questionnaires related to oropharyngeal dysphagia and/or their psychometric validation from the electronic databases PubMed and Embase published up to June 2011. Psychometric properties were judged according to quality criteria proposed for health status questionnaires. Eight questionnaires were included in this study. Four are aimed solely at HRQoL in oropharyngeal dysphagia: the deglutition handicap index (DHI), dysphagia handicap index (DHI'), M.D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), and SWAL-QOL, while the EDGQ, EORTC QLQ-STO 22, EORTC QLQ-OG 25 and EORTC QLQ-H&N35 focus on other primary diseases resulting in dysphagia. The psychometric properties of the DHI, DHI', MDADI, and SWAL-QOL were evaluated. For appropriate applicability of HRQoL questionnaires, strong scores on the psychometric criteria face validity, criterion validity, and interpretability are prerequisites. The SWAL-QOL has the strongest ratings for these criteria, while the DHI′ is the most easy to apply given its 25 items and the use of a uniform scoring format. For optimal use of HRQoL questionnaires in diverse settings, it is necessary to combine psychometric and utility approaches