Parallel multicentre randomised trial of a clinical trial question prompt list in patients considering participation in phase 3 cancer treatment trials

Accepted 9 February 2017Objective: To evaluate the effect of a clinical trial question prompt list in patients considering enrolment in cancer treatment trials. Setting: Tertiary cancer referral hospitals in three state capital cities in Australia. Participants: 88 patients with cancer attending three cancer centres in Australia, who were considering enrolment in phase 3 treatment trials, were invited to enrol in an unblinded randomised trial of provision of a clinical trial question prompt list (QPL) before consenting to enrol in the treatment trial. Interventions: We developed and pilot tested a targeted QPL for patients with cancer considering clinical trial participation (the clinical trial QPL). Consenting patients were randomised to receive the clinical trial QPL or not before further discussion with their oncologist and/or trial nurse about the treatment trial. Primary and secondary outcomes: Questionnaires were completed at baseline and within 3â €..weeks of deciding on treatment trial participation. Main outcome measure: scores on the Quality of Informed Consent questionnaire (QuIC). Results: 88 patients of 130 sought for the study were enrolled (43 males), and 45 received the clinical trial QPL. 49% of trials were chemotherapy interventions for patients with advanced disease, 35% and 16% were surgical adjuvant and radiation adjuvant trials respectively. 70 patients completed all relevant questionnaires. 28 of 43 patients in the control arm compared with 39 of 45 patients receiving the clinical trial QPL completed the QuIC (p=0.0124). There were no significant differences in the QuIC scores between the randomised groups (QuIC part A p=0.08 and QuIC part B p=0.92). There were no differences in patient satisfaction with decisions or in anxiety levels between the randomised groups. Conclusions: Use of a question prompt list did not significantly change the QuIC scores in this randomised trial. ANZCTR 12606000214538 prospectively registered 31/5/2006. Trial registration number: Results, ACTRN12606000214538.Martin H N Tattersall, Michael Jefford, Andrew Martin, Ian Olver, John F Thompson, Richard F Brown, Phyllis N Buto

Second opinions in oncology: the experiences of patients attending the Sydney Cancer Centre.

Objective: To investigate the frequency, goals and outcomes of second-opinion consultations at the Sydney Cancer Centre. Design, setting and participants: A questionnaire-based study of patients who registered to see a medical oncologist at the Sydney Cancer Centre between January 2006 and January 2008 and who were seeking a second opinion. Main outcome measures: Proportion and demographic characteristics of patients who had previously seen a medical oncologist and who stated they were seeking a second opinion. Results: 123 of 1892 new patients (6.5%) stated that they were seeking a second opinion, of whom 22 declined study participation, were excluded from study participation or had been referred specifically for enrolment in a particular clinical trial. Of the remaining 101 patients, 77 completed a questionnaire; 59 were women and 26 had a university degree. Reasons for seeking second opinions included: to obtain information related to treatment (54 patients), for reassurance about diagnosis or treatment (47), and dissatisfaction with the information given by the first medical oncologist (24). Sixty-four patients reported that they received new information at the second-opinion consultation, with 45 identifying discussion of treatment options and 34 identifying discussion of future or prognosis. Fifty-one patients reported how the second-opinion consultation differed from the first, identifying it as longer (24), and indicating that the oncologist answered concerns (26). Most patients were aware of multidisciplinary teams and treatment guidelines, but fewer had read guidelines. Conclusions: Patients seeking a second opinion from a medical oncologist are typically more educated, younger and female, probably due to preferences for more detailed information. The most common reasons for seeking a second opinion were to obtain additional information or reassurance about recommended management. (aut. ref.

Advanced cancer patients' and caregivers' use of a Question Prompt List

Objective The objective of this study was to provide insight into how advanced cancer patients and their caregivers use a Question Prompt List (QPL) during a consultation and for preparation for future consultations. Methods Audiotaped consultations and follow-up phone calls of 28 advanced cancer patients were coded and content analyzed. Questions asked and concerns expressed in consultations were coded for initiator, content, inclusion in the QPL and exact wording. Patients’ reported and future use of the QPL were coded from the phone calls. Results The majority of patients reported that they used the QPL. Questions asked by patients and caregivers predominately coincided with questions from the prognosis section of the QPL. Questions were rarely asked literally from the QPL, instead questions were tailored to patients’ own circumstances. Conclusion QPLs are useful to stimulate discussion on prognosis among advanced cancer patients and caregivers. Patients tailored questions from the QPL to their own circumstances which may suggest high involvement and engagement. The development of more specific tailored communication interventions for advanced cancer patients is warranted. Practice implications Implementation of QPLs in the advanced cancer setting may be beneficial for patients, caregivers and healthcare providers to facilitate discussion of topics such as prognosis

Does age really matter? Recall of information presented to newly referred patients with cancer.

Purpose: To examine age- and age-related differences in recall of information provided during oncology consultations. Patients and Methods: Two hundred sixty patients with cancer diagnosed with heterogeneous cancers, seeing a medical or radiation oncologist for the first time, participated in the study. Patients completed questionnaires assessing information needs and anxiety. Recall of information provided was measured using a structured telephone interview in which patients were prompted to remember details physicians gave about diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Recall was checked against the actual communication in audio-recordings of the consultations. Results: Recall decreased significantly with age, but only when total amount of information presented was taken into account. This indicates that if more information is discussed, older patients have more trouble remembering the information than younger ones. In addition, recall was selectively influenced by prognosis. First, patients with a poorer prognosis recalled less. Next, the more information was provided about prognosis, the less information patients recalled, regardless of their actual prognosis. Conclusion: Recall is not simply a function of patient age. Age only predicts recall when controlling for amount of information presented. Both prognosis and information about prognosis are better predictors of recall than age. These results provide important insights into intervention strategies to improve information recall in patients with cancer. (aut. ref.

Does age really matter? Recall of information presented to newly referred patients with cancer

Purpose To examine age- and age-related differences in recall of information provided during oncology consultations. Patients and Methods Two hundred sixty patients with cancer diagnosed with heterogeneous cancers, seeing a medical or radiation oncologist for the first time, participated in the study. Patients completed questionnaires assessing information needs and anxiety. Recall of information provided was measured using a structured telephone interview in which patients were prompted to remember details physicians gave about diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Recall was checked against the actual communication in audio-recordings of the consultations. Results Recall decreased significantly with age, but only when total amount of information presented was taken into account. This indicates that if more information is discussed, older patients have more trouble remembering the information than younger ones. In addition, recall was selectively influenced by prognosis. First, patients with a poorer prognosis recalled less. Next, the more information was provided about prognosis, the less information patients recalled, regardless of their actual prognosis. Conclusion Recall is not simply a function of patient age. Age only predicts recall when controlling for amount of information presented. Both prognosis and information about prognosis are better predictors of recall than age. These results provide important insights into intervention strategies to improve information recall in patients with cancer