medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-3127 (Electronic)
ISSN 0864-3466 (Print)

2017, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Salud Pública 2017; 43 (3)

The clinical trial patient's perspective

Alonso CL, García MAJ, López PP

Language: Spanish
References: 50
Page: 1-23
PDF size: 272.86 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Recruitment of patients in clinical trials is slow. The perspective of these patients and the barriers that they perceive to participate in these studies are unknown. Objective: To identify the perception of research subjects about participation in clinical trials. Methods: Descriptive cross-sectional study carried out from September 2014 to September 2015. Qualitative and quantitative techniques were used. Healthy subjects and participant patients in clinical trials were involved. Advantages and perceived barriers were analyzed in terms of their participation and interests. Results: The participants attached some social importance to the clinical trial. In the group, 96.7 % pointed out that the opportunity to have access to a treatment was an advantage. The most important barriers were ignoring their health status (65%) and not understanding the explanations provided (60.8 %). On the other hand, 92.5 % would like to be informed about the results and 87.5 % felt that the aforementioned would be a way of thanking them for their participation. Conclusions: Healthy subjects have a basic knowledge of clinical trials, but they insist on the need for education of and communication with the population. They attach social importance to the participation in clinical trials and are willing to do so, although they admit feeling some fear and assuming this type of responsibility. The patients participating in a clinical trial consider it advantageous because they receive treatment that may improve their health, and are prioritized in performance of diagnostic tests. Lack of understanding about the proposals of the trials and difficulties in acceding to the research website are identified as possible barriers. The patients are also very interested in knowing the results of the research study.


REFERENCES

  1. Stewart BW, Wild CP, editors. World Cancer Report 2014. IARC-WHO Ginebra: WHOpress; 2014.

  2. Bayona A, Fajardo N. Desarrollo de nuevos medicamentos: oportunidades y beneficios para el Perú. Rev Perú Med Exp Salud Pública. 2012;29(4):521-8. Acceso: 2015/07/26. Disponible en: http://www.scielosp.org/pdf/rpmesp/v29n4/a16v29n4.pdf

  3. Declaración de Helsinki de la Asociación Médica Mundial. Principios éticos para las investigaciones médicas en seres humanos. 64ª Asamblea General. Fortaleza, Brasil: AMM; 2013. Acceso: 2015/07/26. Disponible en: http://www.wma.net/es/30publications/10policies/b3/

  4. Sawka CA, Pritchard KI. Can improved communication increase patient participation in randanised clinical trials? Eur J Cancer 2001;37:297-9.

  5. Lloyd L, White J. Democratizing clinical research. Nature. 2011;474:277-8.

  6. The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Barcelona: The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research; 1979. Access: 2017/03/20. Available at: http://www.bioeticayderecho.ub.edu/archivos/norm/InformeBelmont.pdf

  7. Cañete R, Guilhem D, Brito K. Consentimiento informado: algunas consideraciones actuales. Acta Bioeth. 2012;18:121-7. Acceso: 2015/11/13. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1726- 569X2012000100011&lng=es

  8. Dilts DM, Sandler A, Cheng S, et al. Steps and time to process clinical trials at the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(11):1761-6. Access: 2015/02/26. Available at: http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/27/11/1761.full

  9. Stryker JE, Wray RJ, Emmons KM, Winer E, Demetri G. Understanding the decisions of cancer clinical trial participants to enter research studies: factors associated with informed consent, patient satisfaction, and decisional regret. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1-2):104-9. Access: 2015/02/26. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16242898

  10. Steinbrook R. Wall Street and Clinical Trials. N Engl J Med. 2005;12(4):1091-3.

  11. Galvin JE, Meuser TM, Bose L, Connell C. Predictors of Physician Referral for Patient Recruitment to Alzheimer Disease Clinical Trials. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2009;23:352-6. Access: 2015/02/26. Available at: http://www.adcs.org/SiteAdmin/ViewFile.aspx?id=26

  12. Getz KA. Improving protocol design feasibility to drive drug development economics and performance. Internat J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(5):5069-80.

  13. Diccionario de la lengua española.23ª ed. Madrid: Real Academia Española; 2014. Acceso: 2015/10/26. Disponible en. http://lema.rae.es/drae/srv/search?id=qQgZie5o7DXX2oPLP6qA

  14. Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, Moore D, Wilson S, Damery S. Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e000496. Access: 2015/02/26. Available at: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000496.short

  15. Getz KA. The gift of participation. A guide to making informed decisions about volunteering for a clinical trial. Bar Harbor, ME: Jerian publishing; 2007.

  16. Ellis PM. Attitudes towards and participation in randomised clinical trials in oncology: a review of the literature. Ann Oncol.2000;11:939-45.

  17. Martin JF, Henderson WG, Zacharski LR. Accrual of patients into a multihospital cancer clinic trial and its implications on planning future studies. Am J Clin Oncol. 1984;7:173-82.

  18. Silva LC. Muestreo para la investigación en ciencias de la salud. Madrid: Díaz de Santos; 1993.

  19. Alonso González R, Bayarre Vea H, Artiles Visbal L. Construcción de un instrumento para medir la satisfacción personal en mujeres de mediana edad. Rev Cubana Salud Pública. 2004;30(2). Acceso: 2015/01/18. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864- 34662004000200006&lng=es

  20. Centre. Reputation Snapshot for the Pharmaceutical Sector. Washington. D. C.: Ipsos Global Reputation; 2012. Access: 2015/11/13. Available at: http://www.ipsos.com/ public-affairs/sites/www.ipsos.com.publicffairs/ files/Pharma%20Reputation%20Snapshot%20-%20INTL.pdf

  21. Daugherty S, Wahba S, Fleurence R ,Avillach P, Buelow J, Colletti R, et al. Patient-powered research networks: building capacity for conducting patientcentered clinical outcomes research. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(4):583-6. Acceso: 2017/03/13. Disponible en. https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article/21/4/583/2909240/Patient-poweredresearch- networks-building

  22. Cameron P, Pond GR, Xu RY, Ellis PM, Goffin JR. A comparison of patient knowledge of clinical trials and trialist priorities. Curr Oncol. 2013;20(3):e193- e205. Access: 2015/11/13. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3671026/

  23. Curbow B, Fogarty LA, McDonnell K, Chill J, Scott LB. Can a brief video intervention improve breast cancer clinical trial knowledge and beliefs? Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:193-205.

  24. Hutchison C, Cowan C, McMahon T, Paul J. A randomised controlled study of an audiovisual patient information intervention on informed consent and recruitment to cancer clinical trials. Br J Cancer. 2007;97:705-11

  25. Comis RL, Miller JD, Aldige CR, Krebs L, Stoval E. Public attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(5):830-5.

  26. Results from Quarterly Omnibus Survey: Clinical Trials Questions-April 22, 1997. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 1997.

  27. Tal Burt, Sazid Alam. PARTAKE Survey of Public Knowledge and Perceptions of Clinical Research in India. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(7):e68666. Access: 2015/11/13. Available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068666Affiliation

  28. Lara P, Paterniti D, Chiechi C, Turrell C, Morain C, Horan N, et al. Evaluation of Factors Affecting Awareness of and Willingness to Participate in Cancer Clinical Trials. JCO. 2005;23(36):9282-9. Access: 2015/11/13. Available at: http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/23/36/9282.short

  29. Bonfill X, Urrutia G, Alonso P, Roura M. La participación de los pacientes en los ensayos clínicos. Aspectos éticos. HUMANITAS Humanidades Méd. 2007;17. Acceso: 2015/09/26. Disponible en: http://www.fundacionmhm.org/www_humanitas_es_numero17/articulo.pdf, julio 2007

  30. Velasco Zamora J. Perspectiva de Los Sujetos en ensayos clínicos. AR. 2010;1(1). Acceso: 2015/11/13 Disponible en: http://issuu.com/jorgevelascozamora/docs/perspectiva_sujeto_investigado_agosto _2010

  31. Osuch JR. The power of the doctor, the vulnerability of the patient, and informed consent. Surg Neurol. 2004;61:494-6.

  32. Madsen S, Mirza M, Holm K, Hilsted K, Kampmann K, Riis P. Attitudes Towards Clinical Research Amongst Participants And Non participants. J Int Med. 2002;251:156-68.

  33. Madsen S, Holm S, Riis P. Ethical Aspects Of Clinical Trials: The Attitudes Of The Public And Out-Patients. J Int Med. 1999;243:571-9.

  34. Madsen S., Holm S, Davidsen B, Munkholm P., Schlighting P, Riis P Ethical Aspects Of Clinical Trials: The Attitudes Of Participants In Two Non-Cancer Trials. J Int Med. 2000; 248: 463-74.

  35. Yeong Cheah P, Tangseefa D, Somsaman A, Chunsuttiwat T, Nosten F, Nicholas PJ, et al. Perceived Benefits, Harms, and Views About How to Share Data Responsibly. A Qualitative Study of Experiences With and Attitudes Toward Data Sharing Among Research Staff and Community Representatives in Thailand. J Empl Res Human Res Ethics. 2015;10(3):278-89. Access: 2015/11/13. Available at: http://jre.sagepub.com/content/10/3/278.short

  36. Verástegui EL. Consenting of the vulnerable: the informed consent procedure in advanced cancer patients in Mexico. BMC Med Ethics. 2006;7:E13.

  37. Deci E, Ryan RM . Self-determination theory in health care and its relations to motivational interviewing: a few comments. Internat J Beh Nut Physical Act. 2012;9:24. Access: 2015/11/13. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1479-5868-9-24.pdf

  38. Código de Nuremberg. Reprinted from Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 181- 182. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1949. Access: 2015/08/02. Available at: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html

  39. Getz K. The Informed Consent Process. App Clin Trials. 2002;11(11):30-6.

  40. Curtis R, Back AL, Ford Dee W, Downey L, Shannon SE, Doorenbos AZ. Effect of Communication Skills Training for Residents and Nurse Practitioners on Quality of Communication With Patients With Serious Illness. A Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2013;310(21):2271-81. Access: 2015/11/13. Available at: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1787407

  41. Barth J, Lannen P. Efficacy of communication skills training courses in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(5):1030-40. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq441

  42. Taylor KM, Kelner M. Informed consent: the physicians' perspective. Soc Sci Med. 1987;24 (2):135-43.

  43. Davis M, Clark SJ, Butchart AT, Singer DC, Shanley TP. Public Participation in, and Awareness about, Medical Research Opportunities in the Era of Clinical and Translational Research. Cli Translatl Sci. 2013;6(2):88-93. Access: 2015/11/13. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.12019/abstract;jsessionid=CB4C5F2 3885DBE0B99D7B792A5AB2D5A.f04t04?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessC ustomisedMessage=

  44. Unger J, Hershman D, Albain K, Moinpour C, Petersen J, BurgK, et al. Patient In come Level and Cancer Clinical Trial Participation. JCO. 2013;31(5):536-42. Access: 2015/11/01. Available at: http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/31/5/536.short

  45. Sateren WB, Trimble EL, Abrams J, Brawley 0, Breen N, Ford L, McCabe M, et al. How sociodemographics, presence of oncology specialists, and hospital cancer program affect accrual to cancer treatment trials. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20 (8):2109-17.

  46. Ferris LE, Sass-Kortsak A. Sharing Research Findings with Research Participants and Communities. IJOEM. 2011;2(3). Access: 2015/11/13. Available at: http://www.theijoem.com/ijoem/index.php/ijoem/article/viewFile/99/192

  47. Fernández CV, Santor D, Weijer C, Strahlendorf C, Moghrabi A, Pentz R, et al. The return of research results to participants: pilot questionnaire of adolescents and parents of children with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;48(4):441-6. Access: 2015/11/13. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16425279

  48. Johnson L, Barrett-Lee P, Ellis P, Bliss J. How do patients want to learn of results of clinical trials? Results of a survey of 1431 breast cancer patients taking part in the TACT Trial. 5th European Breast cancer Conference, Nice, March 2006. Eur J Cancer. 2006;4 Suppl:84.

  49. Dixon-Woods M, Jackson C, Windridge KC, Kenyon S. Receiving a summary of results of a trial: qualitative study of participants' views. BMJ. 2006;332:206-10.

  50. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Communicating the Results of Clinical Research to Participants: Attitudes, Practices, and Future Directions. PLoS Med. 2008;5(5):91. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050091.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com