Ask questions (ASQ): Implementation of a question prompt list communication intervention in a network of outpatient medical oncology clinics.

OBJECTIVE: This descriptive, single-arm study assessed the implementation and patient perceptions of an evidence-based Question Prompt List (QPL), the ASQ brochure, across a network of oncology clinics in a diverse patient population. METHOD: The QPL was revised in collaboration with stakeholders. Implementation was assessed using the RE-AIM framework. Eligible patients were scheduled for a first appointment with an oncologist at any of eight participating clinics. All participants received the ASQ brochure and completed three surveys: one at baseline, one immediately before, and one following their appointment. Surveys assessed sociodemographic characteristics; communication-related outcomes (perceived knowledge, self-efficacy in interacting with physicians, trust in physicians, distress); and perceptions of the ASQ brochure. Analyses included descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Reach: Participants (n = 81) represented the diverse population served by the clinic network. EFFICACY: All outcomes improved significantly, with no significant differences by clinic site or patient race. Adoption: All eight invited clinics participated and recruited patients. Patient perceptions of the ASQ brochure were overwhelmingly positive. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the ASQ brochure was successful in this oncology clinic network providing care to a diverse patient population. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This evidence-based communication intervention can be implemented widely in similar medical contexts and populations.

Addressing multilevel barriers to clinical trial participation among Black and White men with prostate cancer through the PACCT study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer clinical trial participation is low and inequitable. Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials (PACCT) addressed systemic and interpersonal barriers through an observational study of eligibility and an intervention to improve patient-physician communication and trial invitation rates. METHODS: Physicians at two comprehensive cancer centers and Black and White men with prostate cancer participated. Patients were followed for 2 years to determine whether they became potentially eligible for an available therapeutic trial. Potentially eligible patients were randomized to receive a trials-focused Question Prompt List or usual care. Patient-physician interactions were video-recorded. Outcomes included communication quality and trial invitation rates. Descriptive analyses assessed associations between sociodemographic characteristics and eligibility and effects of the intervention on outcomes. RESULTS: Only 44 (22.1%) of participating patients (n = 199) became potentially eligible for an available clinical trial. Patients with higher incomes were more often eligible (>$80,000 vs. <$40,000, adjusted OR = 6.06 [SD, 1.97]; $40,000-$79,000 vs. <$40,000, adjusted OR = 4.40 [SD, 1.81]). Among eligible patients randomized to the intervention (n = 19) or usual care (n = 25), Black patients randomized to the intervention reported participating more actively than usual care patients, while White intervention patients reported participating less actively (difference, 0.41 vs. -0.34). Intervention patients received more trial invitations than usual care patients (73.7% vs. 60.0%); this effect was greater for Black (80.0% vs. 30.0%) than White patients (80.0% vs. 66.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest the greatest enrollment barrier is eligibility for an available trial, but a communication intervention can improve communication quality and trial invitation rates, especially for eligible Black patients.

Physicians' use of plain language during discussions of prostate cancer clinical trials with patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study described physicians' use of plain language during patient-physician cancer clinical trial discussions. METHODS: Video-recorded clinical interactions and accompanying transcripts were taken from a larger study of communication and clinical trials (PACCT). Interactions (n = 25) were selected if they included invitations to participate in a clinical trial. We used descriptive, qualitative discourse analysis, a method that identifies language patterns at or above the sentence level. We first excerpted discussions of clinical trials, then identified instances of plain language within those discussions. Finally, we inductively coded those instances to describe physicians' plain language practices. RESULTS: The analysis identified four plain language practices. Lexical simplification replaced medical terminology with simpler words. Patient-centered definition named, categorized, and explained complex medical terminology. Metaphor explained medical terminology by comparing it with known concepts. Finally, experience-focused description replaced medical terminology with descriptions of patients' potential physical experiences. CONCLUSION: These plain language practices hold promise as part of effective information exchange in discussions of cancer clinical trials. Testing is needed to identify patient preferences and the extent to which these practices address patient health literacy needs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Pending further testing, these plain language practices may be integrated into physician clinical trial and other communication training.