Informed consent conversations and documents: A quantitative comparison.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent for clinical research includes 2 components: informed consent documents (ICDs) and informed consent conversations (ICCs). Readability software has been used to help simplify the language of the ICD, but to the authors' knowledge is rarely used to assess the language used during the ICC, which may influence the quality of informed consent. The current analysis was performed to determine whether length and reading levels of transcribed ICCs are lower than their corresponding ICDs for selected clinical trials, and to assess whether investigator experience affected the use of simpler language and comprehensiveness. METHODS: The current study was a prospective study in which ICCs were audiorecorded at 6 institutions when families were offered participation in pediatric phase I oncology trials. Word count, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Flesch Reading Ease score (FRES) of the ICCs were compared with corresponding ICDs, including the frequency with which investigators addressed 8 prespecified critical consent elements during the ICC. RESULTS: Sixty-nine unique physician/protocol pairs were identified. Overall, ICCs contained fewer words (4677 vs 6364 words; P = .0016) and had a lower FKGL (6 vs 9.7; P ≤ .0001) and a higher FRES (77.8 vs 56.7; P<.0001) compared with their respective ICDs, but were more likely to omit critical consent elements, such as voluntariness (55%) and dose-limiting toxicities (26%). Years of investigator experience was not correlated with reliably covering critical elements or decreased linguistic complexity. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians use more understandable language during ICCs than the corresponding ICD, but appear to less reliably cover elements critical to fully informed consent. Efforts focused at providing communication training for clinician-investigators should be made to optimize the synergy between the ICD and the ICC.

Practical communication guidance to improve phase 1 informed consent conversations and decision-making in pediatric oncology.

BACKGROUND: It can be difficult to explain pediatric phase 1 oncology trials to families of children with refractory cancer. Parents may misunderstand the information presented to them, and physicians may assume that certain topics are covered in the informed consent document and need not be discussed. Communication models can help to ensure effective discussions. METHODS: Suggestions for improving the informed consent process were first solicited from phase 1 study clinicians via questionnaire. Eight parents who had enrolled their child on a phase 1 pediatric oncology trial were recruited for an advisory group designed to assess the clinicians' suggestions and make additional recommendations for improving informed consent for pediatric phase 1 trials. RESULTS: A phase 1 communication model was designed to incorporate the suggestions of clinicians and families. It focused on educating parents/families about phase 1 trials at specific time points during a child's illness, but specifically at the point of disease recurrence. An informative phase 1 fact sheet that can be distributed to families was also presented. CONCLUSIONS: Families who will be offered information regarding phase 1 clinical trials can first receive a standardized fact sheet explaining the general purpose of these early-phase clinical trials. Parental understanding may be enhanced further when oncologists address key themes, beginning at the time of diagnosis and continuing through important decision points during the child's illness. This model should be prospectively evaluated.

A first look at women's perspectives on noninvasive prenatal testing to detect sex chromosome aneuploidies and microdeletion syndromes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore women's opinions about the use of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) to assess the risk of sex chromosome aneuploidies and microdeletion syndromes. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with women who were currently pregnant or had recently delivered. Qualitative analysis using interpretive description was used to generate study findings. RESULTS: Thirty-one women (mean age 32.4 years) participated in the focus groups. Participants were unfamiliar with sex chromosome aneuploidies but expressed support for the use of NIPT to detect these conditions. Participants were uncertain about the utility and actionability of receiving information about microdeletion syndromes with variable or unknown phenotypic expression. Participants voiced their desire to be informed of all conditions assessed by NIPT prior to testing. They considered clinicians to be the key provider of such information, although stated that patients have a responsibility to be knowledgeable prior to testing in order to support informed decision making. CONCLUSIONS: The use of NIPT to identify sex chromosome aneuploidies and microdeletion syndromes will introduce new challenges for clinicians to ensure pregnant women have the information and resources to make informed choices about NIPT when used for these conditions.

Patient involvement in informed consent for pediatric phase I cancer research.

OBJECTIVE: To examine children's and adolescents' involvement in the informed consent conference for phase I cancer trials and test associations with patient age, ease of understanding, and pressure to participate. PROCEDURE: Participants included 61 patients aged 7 through 21 years who were offered participation in a phase I trial. Consent conferences were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded for communication between patients and physicians and between patients and parents. RESULTS: On the basis of word counts, the mean proportion of the consent conference in which the physician was talking to the patient was 36%; the vast majority (73%) of this communication consisted of giving information. Physician-patient communication increased with age, but overall levels of patient-to-physician communication were low (3%). After controlling for patient age, greater physician-to-patient communication was associated with greater ease of understanding. CONCLUSIONS: The focus on providing information in the context of informed consent may come at the expense of other communication exchanges that are important to patients, especially in the context of end-of-life decisions. Children and adolescents may benefit from the assent process when physicians direct more of their communication to them. Future research should identify the reasons for low patient communication during the consent conference and strategies to enhance their participation in decision making about phase I trial enrollment.

Suggestions from adolescents, young adults, and parents for improving informed consent in phase 1 pediatric oncology trials.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent for a pediatric oncology phase 1 trial is a delicate process, and is made more complex by the difficulty of the information and the requirement for parental consent, and patient assent when applicable. This analysis identifies suggestions for improving the informed consent process received from parents and adolescent and young adult patients (aged 14 years-21 years) who had the option of participating in a phase 1 pediatric oncology trial. METHODS: A total of 57 parents and 20 patients completed interviews as part of a multisite, prospective, descriptive study. These transcribed interviews were studied using established content analysis methods. RESULTS: Parent and patient responses contained 220 suggestions and 54 suggestions, respectively. A total of 21 unique suggestions for improvement emerged in 3 main themes: 1) provision of more information; 2) structure and presentation of the informed consent process, and 3) suggestions for physicians conducting the process. Common suggestions included providing more specific information about the trial, allowing more time for decision-making, and using different methods to deliver information. CONCLUSIONS: Participants involved in the informed consent process for a phase 1 trial provided specific recommendations to research teams to enhance the process. Physician/investigators should be informed of these recommendations and develop and test interventions incorporating them.

Adolescent perspectives on phase I cancer research.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine adolescent patients' perspectives on their understanding and decision making about a pediatric phase I cancer study. PROCEDURE: Participants included adolescents ages 14-21 years with cancer (N = 20), all of whom attended a phase I study consent conference. Participants responded to closed- and open-ended questions on a verbally administered structured interview, which assessed aspects of understanding and decision making about the phase I study. RESULTS: All participants decided to enroll in the phase I study. The majority of participants understood that participation was voluntary, entailed risks, and that they could withdraw. Most also believed that participation in the phase I study would increase the length of their lives. The most frequent reasons for enrolling were positive clinical benefit, needing an option, impact on quality of life, and few side effects or fewer than those of current or past treatments. Eighty-five percent of participants reported that they themselves made the final decision about enrollment in the phase I study. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants hoped or expected that the phase I study would provide a direct benefit (increased survival time or cure) and reported that they themselves were the final decision-maker about enrollment. Clinicians may underestimate the role of adolescents, especially if they believe that parents typically make such decisions. Future research should assess the actual participation of children and adolescents during the informed consent process and explore the role of hope in their decision making about phase I studies.

Hope and persuasion by physicians during informed consent.

PURPOSE: To describe hopeful and persuasive messages communicated by physicians during informed consent for phase I trials and examine whether such communication is associated with physician and parent ratings of the likelihood of benefit, physician and parent ratings of the strength of the physician's recommendation to enroll, parent ratings of control, and parent ratings of perceived pressure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants were children with cancer (n = 85) who were offered a phase I trial along with their parents and physicians. Informed consent conferences (ICCs) were audiotaped and coded for physician communication of hope and persuasion. Parents completed an interview (n = 60), and physicians completed a case-specific questionnaire. RESULTS: The most frequent hopeful statements related to expectations of positive outcomes and provision of options. Physicians failed to mention no treatment and/or palliative care as options in 68% of ICCs and that the disease was incurable in 85% of ICCs. When physicians mentioned no treatment and/or palliative care as options, both physicians and parents rated the physician's strength of recommendation to enroll in the trial lower. CONCLUSION: Hopes and goals other than cure or longer life were infrequently mentioned, and a minority of physicians communicated that the disease was incurable and that no treatment and/or palliative care were options. These findings are of concern, given the low likelihood of medical benefit from phase I trials. Physicians have an important role to play in helping families develop alternative goals when no curative options remain.

Negotiating decisions during informed consent for pediatric Phase I oncology trials.

During informed consent conferences (ICCs) for Phase I trials, oncologists must present complex information while addressing concerns. Research on communication that evolves during ICCs remains largely unexplored. We examined communication during ICCs for pediatric Phase I cancer trials using a stratified random sample from six pediatric cancer centers. A grounded theory approach identified key communication steps and factors influencing the negotiation of decisions for trial participation. Analysis suggests that during ICCs, families, patients, and clinicians exercise choice and control by negotiating micro-decisions in two broad domains: drug logic and logistics, and administration/scheduling. Micro-decisions unfold in a four-step communication process: (1) introduction of an issue; (2) response; (3) negotiation of the issue; and (4) resolution and decision. Negotiation over smaller micro-decisions is prominent in ICCs and merits further study.