Promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy: A feasibility and pilot trial of a digital storytelling intervention delivered via text-messaging.

OBJECTIVE: Smoking during pregnancy causes risks to mother and infant health. We investigated the feasibility and likely success of SKIP-IT, a narrative and picture-based smoking cessation intervention delivered via text messages. METHODS: A feasibility and pilot trial. We aimed to recruit 70 pregnant women who smoked, randomised to usual care alone, or usual care and the SKIP-IT intervention, between 12 weeks of pregnancy and 6 weeks post due-date. Outcomes assessed were recruitment, retention, acceptability of, and engagement with the intervention, smoking behaviour, intentions, perceived risk, and self-efficacy. RESULTS: Of 312 women initially approached by smoking cessation services only 54 (17%) agreed to be contacted by the research team. Twenty were then either ineligible or uncontactable and 28 (82%) participated. Most women reported texts to be entertaining and helpful. The proportion of women not smoking at follow-up was lower in the intervention group, but numbers were too small to draw conclusions about effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The intervention was acceptable, but difficulty in making initial and follow-up contacts meant our methods were unfeasible for a larger trial. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Digital Storytelling interventions could help women quit smoking, but further research is required to identify alternative methods for studies with pregnant women who smoke.

Intraoral plasmablastic lymphoma as a primary oral manifestation: A case report and review of literature.

Plasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) is an aggressive type of large B-cell lymphoma as stated in the WHO classification of 2008. It is a rare form of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, generally seen in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome affected individuals. A case of a 42-year-old female patient is presented here. The patient complained of swelling in the lower right back tooth region and presented with a history of extraction of molars. The underlying HIV status was detected after the oral examination. The diagnosis of PBL was confirmed with immunohistochemical analysis.

Regenerative medicine: Stroke survivor and carer views and motivations towards a proposed stem cell clinical trial using placebo neurosurgery.

BACKGROUND: Few studies explore stroke survivor views and motivations towards stem cell therapy (SCT). This qualitative study explores the views and motivations of both stroke survivors and their partners/carers towards a proposed 2-arm Phase III Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) comparing intracerebral insertion of stem cells with placebo neurosurgery in stroke survivors with disability. OBJECTIVE: To explore views and motivations towards a proposed 2-arm stem cell trial and identify factors that may impede and enhance participation. DESIGN: This study adopts a naturalistic design to explore the complexity of this field, employing a participatory action-research approach comprising a specialized Conversation (World) Café form of focus group. Data were collected via 5 Conversation Cafés with stroke survivors (age 40-75) and partners/carers between June and October 2016. Of 66 participants, 53 (31 male, 22 female) were stroke survivors and 13 (6 female, 7 male) were partners/carers. Qualitative data were analysed using a thematic approach. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Stroke survivor views and motivations reflect anticipation of the personal and future benefits of regenerative medicine. Partners/carers sought to balance the value of stroke survivor hope with carrying the weight of hope as carer, a conflict burden adding to known caregiver burden. All participants expressed the need for during and post-trial psychological support. This study provides a rare opportunity to explore the prospective views and motivations of stroke survivors and their partners/carers towards a proposed Phase III 2-arm RCT. This adds weight to qualitative evidence exploring capacity, consent, decision making, perceptions of treatment risk and supports required for clinical trial participation.

Identifying components in consent information needed to support informed decision making about trial participation: An interview study with women managing cancer.

BACKGROUND: Research governance requires patients give informed consent to participate in clinical trials. However, there are concerns that consent information may not support patient participation decisions. This study investigates the utility of consent information in supporting women's trial participation decisions when receiving treatment for cancer. DESIGN: An interview study with women receiving cancer treatments at a medical oncology outpatient clinic in Yorkshire (UK). All women over 18 years, not admitted to a hospital ward and who had currently or previously been invited to take part in a trial were invited to take part in the study over a three month period. Interviews were audio-tape recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of those eligible (n = 41), 21 women with breast (n = 11), ovarian (n = 8) and endometrial (n = 2) cancer participated (mean age = 57 years). Eighteen had made at least one trial decision and three were considering taking part in a trial. Findings are synthesised under two analytical themes: 1) Influence of the cancer and cancer treatment context on decision making for trial participation; and 2) Experiences of the consenting process and their influence on decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Designing trial information to represent explicitly the trial participation decision as being between standard care and study-related care options is more likely to effectively support patients in making informed decisions between standard care treatments and taking part in a trial.

Framing Options as Choice or Opportunity: Does the Frame Influence Decisions?

OBJECTIVE: Health professionals must enable patients to make informed decisions about health care choices through unbiased presentation of all options. This study examined whether presenting the decision as "opportunity" rather than "choice" biased individuals' preferences in the context of trial participation for cancer treatment. METHODS: Self-selecting healthy women (N = 124) were randomly assigned to the following decision frames: opportunity to take part in the trial (opt-in), opportunity to be removed from the trial (opt-out), and choice to have standard treatment or take part in the trial (choice). The computer-based task required women to make a hypothetical choice about a real-world cancer treatment trial. The software presented the framed scenario, recorded initial preference, presented comprehensive and balanced information, traced participants' use of information during decision making, and recorded final decision. A posttask paper questionnaire assessed perceived risk, attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and satisfaction with decision. RESULTS: Framing influenced women's immediate preferences. Opportunity frames, whether opt-in or opt-out, introduced a bias as they discouraged women from choosing standard treatment. Using the choice frame avoided this bias. The opt-out opportunity frame also affected women's perceived social norm; women felt that others endorsed the trial option. The framing bias was not present once participants had had the opportunity to view detailed information on the options within a patient decision aid format. There were no group differences in information acquisition and final decisions. Sixteen percent changed their initial preference after receiving full information. CONCLUSIONS: A "choice" frame, where all treatment options are explicit, is less likely to bias preferences. Presentation of full information in parallel, option-by-attribute format is likely to "de-bias" the decision frame. Tailoring of information to initial preferences would be ill-advised as preferences may change following detailed information.

How do doctors refer to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) in oncology consultations?

PURPOSE: We conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of consultations between oncologists and their patients to explore how patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data were referred to in the process of (1) eliciting and exploring patients' concerns; (2) making decisions about supportive treatment and (3) making decisions about chemotherapy and other systemic treatments. METHODS: We purposively sampled audio recordings of 18 consultations from the intervention arm and 4 from the attention control arm of a previous UK randomised controlled trial of the feedback of PROMs data to doctors (Velikova et al. in J Clin Oncol 22(4):714-724 [1]). We used a combination of content and conversation analysis to examine how opportunities for discussion of health-related quality of life issues are opened up or closed down within the consultation and explore why this may or may not lead to changes in patient management. FINDINGS: Explicit reference to the PROMs data provided an opportunity for the patient to clarify and further elaborate on the side effects of chemotherapy. High scores on the PROMs data were not explored further if the patient indicated they were not a problem or were not related to the cancer or chemotherapy. Symptomatic treatment was more often offered for problems like nausea, constipation, pain and depression but much less so for fatigue. Doctors discussed fatigue by providing a cause for the fatigue (e.g. the chemotherapy), presenting this as 'something to be expected', minimising its impact or moving on to another topic. Chemotherapy regimens were not changed on the basis of the PROMs data alone, but PROMs data were sometimes used to legitimise changes. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit mention of PROMs data in the consultation may strengthen opportunities for patients to elaborate on their problems, but doctors may not always know how to do this. Our findings have informed the development of a training package to enable doctors to optimise their use of PROMs data within the consultation.

Why values elicitation techniques enable people to make informed decisions about cancer trial participation.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids help patients make informed treatment decisions. Values clarification (VC) techniques are part of decision aids that help patients assimilate the information with their personal values. There is little evidence that these techniques contribute to enhanced decision making over and above the provision of good quality information. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether VC techniques are active ingredients in enhancing informed decision making and explain how and why they work. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (i) information only, (ii) information plus implicit task, (iii) information plus explicit task. Thirty healthy women from a UK University participated by making a hypothetical choice between taking part in a clinical trial and having the standard treatment for breast cancer. Verbal protocols were elicited by think-aloud method and content analysed to assess informed decision making; a questionnaire was completed after the decision assessing decision preference, perceptions of decisional conflict and ambivalence. Data were analysed using multivariate statistics. FINDINGS: No participants changed their decision preference as a result of the VC techniques. Women in the explicit VC group evaluated more information in accord with personal values, expressed lower ambivalence, decisional uncertainty and greater clarity of personal values than those in the implicit VC and control groups. Feelings of ambivalence about both options were related to decisional conflict. CONCLUSION: Explicit VC techniques are likely to be active ingredients in decision aids. They work by enabling people to deliberate about the decision information in accord with their personal values, which is associated with a better decision experience.