Therapeutic misunderstandings in modern research.

Clinical trials play a crucial role in generating evidence about healthcare interventions and improving outcomes for current and future patients. For individual trial participants, however, there are inevitably trade-offs involved in clinical trial participation, given that trials have traditionally been designed to benefit future patient populations rather than to offer personalised care. Failure to understand the distinction between research and clinical care and the likelihood of benefit from participation in clinical trials has been termed the 'therapeutic misconception'. The evolution of the clinical trials landscape, including greater integration of clinical trials into healthcare and development of novel trial methodologies, may reinforce the significance of the therapeutic misconception and other forms of misunderstanding while at the same time (paradoxically) challenging its salience. Using cancer clinical trials as an exemplar, we describe how methodological changes in early- and late-phase clinical trial designs, as well as changes in the design and delivery of healthcare, impact upon the therapeutic misconception. We suggest that this provides an impetus to re-examine the ethics of clinical research, particularly in relation to trial access, participant selection, communication and consent, and role delineation.

Perceptions about and reasons for participation in research bronchoscopy in Uganda: A qualitative analysis.

This study sought to assess perceptions towards and reasons for participation in research bronchoscopy studies in a high TB burden urban setting. Additionally, the study aimed to identify areas of pre- and post-procedural concern among healthy adults approached to participate in research bronchoscopy. A cross sectional qualitative study was undertaken at the Uganda-Case Western Reserve University Collaboration Tuberculosis Research Project Clinic at Mulago National Referral Hospital in Kampala, Uganda. In-depth interviews were conducted with participants at their pre-bronchoscopy visit (n = 17) and after they had undergone bronchoscopy (n = 23) to examine their perceptions and experiences with the procedure. Following consent, all interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed and typed in MS WORD. Local language interviews were translated into English by the social science interviewers. Qualitative analysis was performed manually following an inductive and emergent approach typical in thematic analysis. This study was approved by the Makerere University School of Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee (MAKSS REC 09.18.220) and registered with the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST SS4785). Overall willingness to participate in bronchoscopy was high as many participants viewed the study as primarily a means of getting free health checks and determining their health status. Notably, despite extensive face to face counseling for this study coupled with the fact that our participants had been involved in prior research at the site, therapeutic misconception still played a pivotal role in willingness to participate in research bronchoscopy. Therapeutic misconception has important ethical and research implications in clinical research, which requires strategies to tackle it, even among a pool of potential participants who are knowledgeable about a disease or clinical care procedures. Continuous awareness and knowledge building about the difference between being a trial participant and therapeutic misconception must become a mainstay in trials to improve the process of informed consent for future research bronchoscopy studies.

When research becomes practice: the concept of the therapeutic misconception and challenges to consent in clinical trials.

Many factors influence patients' decisions to participate in clinical trials. For many, the primary motivation is the possibility that they might derive some benefit from participation. This is particularly true for patients with limited treatment options, such as patients with advanced cancer. While this is not surprising, it is potentially problematic if patients fail to recognise the distinction between research and clinical care (a phenomenon known as the 'therapeutic misconception'). This is becoming increasingly problematic as clinical trial designs become more complex, as clinical trials become more embedded in routine clinical care, and as trials are increasingly used by patients and clinicians to access new diagnostic platforms and therapies. We outline some of these recent trends, focusing on the cancer clinical trials landscape as this provides a good case study of the phenomenon. We conclude by making preliminary suggestions that changes to the consent process, perhaps using 'dynamic consent' platforms, might help to mitigate the therapeutic misconception and note the need for further research to guide strategies for improving communication and decision-making.

Reassessing the measurement and presence of therapeutic misconception in a phase 1 setting.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic misconception (TM) refers to research subjects' failure to distinguish the goals of clinical research from standard personal care. TM has traditionally been determined by questioning the patient about the research study's purpose. Recent research, however, has questioned whether TM is as prevalent as reported due to discrepancies between patient/researcher interpretations of TM questions. The authors have created an interview tool receptive to these advancements to more accurately determine the prevalence of TM. METHODS: Patients were questioned about the trial's purpose as follows: 1) "Is the trial mostly intending to help research and gain knowledge?," 2) "Is it mostly intending to help you as a person?," or 3) "Don't know." Participants were then asked what they thought this question was asking: A) "What my own intentions are for participating," B) "What the official purpose of the research study is," or C) "Not sure." A patient exhibited TM by answering that the official trial purpose was to help him or her. RESULTS: Patients (n = 98) had a mean age of 60 years, were mostly White (64%), had a combined family annual income ≥$60,000 (61%), and 49% had a college degree. Twelve of 98 patients (12%) definitely exhibited TM. This was much lower than the author's original finding of 68% in a similar cohort. Twenty-four of 98 patients (24.5%) were unclear about what one or both questions were asking and could not be categorized. CONCLUSIONS: Previously, a patient was thought to have TM if they answered that the purpose of the trial was to benefit to him or her. An additional query about how patients interpreted that question revealed only 12% definitely had TM. LAY SUMMARY: Therapeutic misconception (TM) refers to research subjects' failure to distinguish the goals of clinical research from standard personal care. TM signals a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of clinical research, threatening valid informed consent to participate in clinical trials. TM has traditionally been determined by questioning patients about their research study's purpose. Recent research, however, has questioned whether TM is as prevalent due to discrepancies between patient/researcher interpretations of TM questions. By developing an interview-tool receptive to these advancements, we report a lower TM estimate in the phase 1 setting (12%) than we found previously in a similar cohort (68%).

A Qualitative Analysis of Ethical Perspectives on Recruitment and Consent for Human Intracranial Electrophysiology Studies.

Intracranial electrophysiological research methods, including those applying electrodes on the cortical surface or in deep structures, have become increasingly important in human neuroscience. They also pose novel ethical concerns, as human studies require the participation of neurological patients undergoing surgery for conditions such as epilepsy and Parkinson's disease. Research participants in this setting may be vulnerable to conflicts of interest, therapeutic misconception, and other threats to valid recruitment and consent. We conducted semi-structured interviews with investigators from NIH-funded studies involving recording or stimulation inside the human skull. We elicited perspectives on study recruitment and consent procedures, and analyzed transcripts using a modified grounded theory approach. We interviewed 26 investigators from 19 separate intracranial electrophysiology studies, who described two study types: opportunity studies (n = 15) and experimental trials (n = 4). Respondents described significant heterogeneity in recruitment and consent procedures, even among studies employing similar techniques. In some studies, clinician-investigators were specifically barred from obtaining consent, while in other studies clinician-investigators were specifically required to obtain consent; regulatory guidance was inconsistent. Respondents also described various models for subject selection, the timing of consent, and continuing consent for temporally extended studies. Respondents expressed ethical concerns about participants' vulnerability and the communication of research-related risks. We found a lack of consensus among investigators regarding recruitment and consent methods in human intracranial electrophysiology. This likely reflects the novelty and complexity of such studies and indicates a need for further discussion and development of best practices in this research domain.

Comparison of Various Phase I Combination Therapy Designs in Oncology for Evaluation of Early Tumor Shrinkage Using Simulations.

There is still a lack of efficient designs for identifying the dose response in oncology combination therapies in early clinical trials. The concentration response relationship can be identified using the early tumor shrinkage time course, which has been shown to be a good early response marker of clinical efficacy. The performance of various designs using an exposure-tumor growth inhibition model was explored using simulations. Different combination effects of new drug M and cetuximab (reference therapy) were explored first assuming no effect of M on cetuximab (to investigate the type I error (α)), and subsequently assuming additivity or synergy between cetuximab and M. One-arm, two-arm, and four-arm designs were evaluated. In the one-arm design, 60 patients received cetuximab + M. In the two-arm design, 30 patients received cetuximab and 30 received cetuximab + M. In the four-arm design, in addition to cetuximab and cetuximab + M as standard doses, combination arms with lower doses of cetuximab were evaluated (15 patients/arm). Model-based predictions or "simulated observations" of early tumor shrinkage at week 8 (ETS8) were compared between the different arms. With the same number of individuals, the one-arm design showed better statistical power than other designs but led to strong inflation of α in case of misestimated reference for ETS8 value. The two-arm design protected against this misestimation and, with the same total number of subjects, would provide higher statistical power than a four-arm design. However, a four-arm design would be helpful for exploring more doses of cetuximab in combination with M to better understand the interaction.

Patient Perceptions in a Nonblinded Randomized Trial of Radiation Therapy Technologies: A Novel Survey Study Exploring Therapeutic Misconception.

PURPOSE: Therapeutic misconception is the tendency for a clinical trial participant to overlook the scientific objective of a clinical trial and instead believe that an experimental intervention is intended for personal therapeutic benefit. We sought to evaluate this tendency in the setting of a clinical trial of a new radiation therapy technology. METHODS: Patients with left-sided, node positive breast cancer enrolled in a randomized clinical trial evaluating intensity modulated radiation therapy with deep inspiration breath hold (IMRT-DIBH) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). Patients who enrolled completed surveys at baseline, after randomization, and upon completion of radiation therapy to evaluate expectations, satisfaction, and experiences. RESULTS: Forty women participated in the survey study, with 20 in each arm. Most participants endorsed the perception that participation in the trial might result in better treatment than the current standard treatment (77%) and more medical attention than being off trial (54%). At baseline, most women (74%) believed that a new treatment technology is superior than an established one. Before randomization, 43% of participants believed IMRT-DIBH would be more effective than standard treatment with 3DCRT, none believed that 3DCRT would be more effective, 23% believed that they would be the same, and 34% did not know. None believed that IMRT-DIBH would cause worse long-term side effects, whereas 37% thought that 3DCRT would. Most (71%) reported that they would choose to be treated with IMRT-DIBH; none would have elected 3DCRT if given a choice. Nearly half (44%) in the 3DCRT arm wished that they had been assigned to the IMRT-DIBH arm; none in the IMRT-DIBH arm expressed a wish for crossover. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants reported the perception that trial participation would result in better treatment and more medical attention than off trial, hallmarks of therapeutic misconception. Our observations provide empirical evidence of a fixed belief in the superiority of new technology and highlight the importance of adjusting expectations through informed consent to mitigate therapeutic misconception.

Use of complementary/integrative methods: cancer survivors' misconceptions about recurrence prevention.

PURPOSE: Many cancer survivors use complementary and alternative health methods (CAM). Because we are unaware of high-level evidence supporting CAM for preventing cancer recurrence, we studied post-treatment survivors who use CAM to assess (1) the percentage who included preventing recurrence as a motive for using CAM, (2) characteristics of survivors who use CAM intended to prevent recurrence, and (3) CAM domains associated with use for recurrence prevention. METHODS: We studied participants in the American Cancer Society's Study of Cancer Survivors-I (nationwide study of adult survivors) who used CAM (excluding osteopathy, yoga, tai chi, or qi gong users, as well as anyone whose only reported CAM was prayer/meditation). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations of independent variables with CAM use for recurrence prevention. RESULTS: Among 1220 survivors using CAM, 14.8% reported recurrence prevention as a reason for CAM use (although only 0.4% indicated this was their only reason). The following were independently associated with odds of CAM use to prevent recurrence: not being married/in a marriage-like relationship (OR = 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.23), using mind-body (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.08-2.51) or biologically based (OR = 4.11, 95% CI 1.96-8.59) CAM and clinically relevant fear of recurrence (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.38-2.78). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1/7 of survivors who use CAM have unrealistic expectations about CAM reducing recurrence risk. This expectation is strongly associated with the use of biologically based CAM. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patient education should support informed decisions and realistic expectations regarding any complementary/integrative or mainstream/conventional clinical intervention.

How Should Physicians Help Patients Understand Unknowns of Nanoparticle-Based Medicines?

When a patient wants to enroll in a clinical trial to gain early access to an apparently promising but unproven intervention, her physician should clarify differences between participating in research and receiving treatment to help her avoid therapeutic misconception, make a thoughtful decision, and consider relevant clinical and ethical details. These include a patient's disease and treatment experiences, needs, interests, values, the design and phase of the trial, and the nature of the intervention being studied. When an unproven intervention is a nanodrug, a physician's role is especially difficult, because though nanomedicine might offer real benefits, it can also pose unexpected or even unprecedented harms. Thus, a physician should help a patient explore possible outcomes while promoting realism, countering hype, and preserving hope.

Video or verbal? A randomised trial of the informed consent process prior to endoscopy.

AIM: Informed consent (IC) prior to endoscopy is often inconsistently and poorly performed. We compared use of video-assisted consent to standard verbal consent for enhancing patients' recollection of procedural risks, understanding and fulfilment of expectation. METHOD: Two hundred patients attending for gastroscopy or colonoscopy were randomised to either video-assisted consent (n=100) or verbal consent (n=100). The primary outcomes measured via a questionnaire were the recollection of procedural risks (sum of all correct answers for risk recall items) and patient experience compared to information provided in the consent process. Secondary outcomes included reported patient understanding and staff satisfaction between groups. RESULTS: There was no difference between video or verbal groups in terms of risk recall scores (p=0.46), with less than half the patients able to recall more than two risks. There was a signal towards improved recall of bleeding as a potential risk in the video as compared to the verbal arm but it did not reach statistical significance (p=0.059). Patients' perceived understanding and fulfilment of expectation was high (>96%) in both groups. Seventy-one percent of the staff preferred using the video over the verbal IC. CONCLUSION: Video-assisted consent made no significant difference to the IC process in terms of patient recollection or experience compared to usual verbal IC. Despite very poor recollection of procedural risks, patients in both the video and verbal groups reported understanding of the procedure and satisfaction with the IC process. Reasons for this mismatch are unclear. Further action to prioritise information delivery during IC is required. Future studies in this field should include patient-centred outcomes as a measure of success.

Therapeutic Misperceptions in Early-Phase Cancer Trials: From Categorical to Continuous.

Appropriate enrollment in early-phase clinical trials demands that potential research participants understand and appreciate critical study-related information, because discrepancies in understanding or appreciation can potentially invalidate informed consent to participate in research. Four terms were previously developed to categorize these discrepancies: therapeutic "misconception," "therapeutic misestimation," "therapeutic optimism," and "unrealistic optimism." In this article, we propose a continuous framework of therapeutic misperceptions, rather than discrete categorical concepts. One end of this continuum contains discrepancies in understanding, and at the other end are discrepancies in appreciation. Categorical terminologies represent points along this continuum. Discrepancies in understanding and appreciation each lead to unique ethical concerns and likely require different interventions. This framework highlights the dearth of empirical work on the appreciation end of the continuum, especially related to navigating persistent discrepancies in appreciation. Employing a continuous framework of therapeutic misperceptions supports a nuanced approach to the unique circumstances of each research subject, aiding researchers in supporting truly informed consent.

[Patients' perceptions of and attitudes towards epilepsy surgery: mistaken concepts in Colombia]. / Percepciones y actitudes de los pacientes frente a la cirugia de la epilepsia: conceptos equivocados en Colombia.

INTRODUCTION: Selected patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy benefit from epilepsy surgery, however significant delays remain. The aim of this study was to assess knowledge and attitudes toward epilepsy surgery among patients with epilepsy and identify barriers that might delay the treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 10-minute questionnaire was administered to patients with epilepsy in Colombia. Survey assessed the following: knowledge of surgical options, perceptions about the risks of surgery vs. ongoing seizures, disease disability, treatment goals, and demographic and socioeconomic variables. RESULTS: We recruited 88 patients with focal epilepsy. More than half of patients (56%) were not aware that surgery might be an option. Apprehension about epilepsy surgery was evident, 60% of patients perceived epilepsy surgery to be very or moderately dangerous. A large proportion of patients believe death (41%), stroke (47%), vision loss (56%), personality change (56%), paralysis (62%), difficulties in speaking (69%), and memory loss (60%) were frequent side effects. The majority of patients (62%) consider the surgical procedure as the last option of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is a negative attitude toward epilepsy surgery based on the patients' misperceptions of suffering neurological deficits during the surgery, reflecting lack of knowledge toward this type of treatment. These perceptions can contribute to delays in surgical care.

TITLE: Percepciones y actitudes de los pacientes frente a la cirugia de la epilepsia: conceptos equivocados en Colombia.Introduccion. Los pacientes con epilepsia focal farmacorresistente se podrian beneficiar de la cirugia de la epilepsia; sin embargo, existen demoras en la realizacion del procedimiento. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el conocimiento y las actitudes de los pacientes hacia la cirugia de epilepsia e identificar barreras que pudieran retrasar el tratamiento. Pacientes y metodos. Se aplico un cuestionario de 10 minutos a pacientes con epilepsia en Colombia. La encuesta evaluo el conocimiento de la opcion quirurgica, las percepciones sobre el riesgo de la cirugia frente al riesgo de crisis no controladas, la discapacidad producida por la enfermedad, las metas del tratamiento y las variables demograficas y socioeconomicas. Resultados. Se seleccionaron 88 pacientes con epilepsia focal. El 56% de los pacientes no sabia que la cirugia podria ser una opcion terapeutica. El 60% considero que la cirugia de la epilepsia es muy o moderadamente peligrosa. Una gran proporcion pensaba que la muerte (41%), el ictus (47%), la perdida visual (56%), los cambios en la personalidad (56%), la paralisis (61%), las dificultades para hablar (69%) y la perdida de la memoria (60%) eran efectos secundarios comunes. La mayoria (62%) consideraba el procedimiento como la ultima opcion de tratamiento. Conclusiones. Existe una actitud negativa por parte de los pacientes frente a la cirugia de la epilepsia fundamentada en la sobreestimacion del riesgo de adquirir deficits neurologicos secundarios al procedimiento, lo que refleja la falta de conocimiento hacia este tratamiento. Estas percepciones erroneas pueden contribuir a demoras en la atencion quirurgica.

Living with Crohn's disease: an exploratory cross-sectional qualitative study into decision-making and expectations in relation to autologous haematopoietic stem cell treatment (the DECIDES study).

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Severe Crohn's disease impacts negatively on individual quality of life, with treatment options limited once conventional therapies have been exhausted. The aim of this study was to explore factors influencing decision-making and expectations of people considering or participating in the Autologous Haematopoietic Stem Cell Treatment trial. METHODS: An international, cross-sectional qualitative study, involving semistructured face to face interviews across five sites (four UK and one Spain). 38 participants were interviewed (13 men, 25 women; age range 23-67 years; mean age 37 years). The mean age at diagnosis was 20 years. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim and transcripts were analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from the analysis: (1) 'making your mind up'-a determination to receive stem cell treatment despite potential risks; (2) communicating and understanding risks and benefits; (3) non-participation-your choice or mine? (4) recovery and reframing of personal expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making and expectations of people with severe Crohn's disease in relation to autologous haematopoietic stem cell treatment is a complex process influenced by participants' histories of battling with their condition, a frequent willingness to consider novel treatment options despite potential risks and, in some cases, a raised level of expectation about the benefits of trial participation. Discussions with patients who are considering novel treatments should take into account potential 'therapeutic misestimation', thereby enhancing shared decision-making, informed consent and the communication with those deemed non-eligible. ASTIC TRIAL EUDRACT NUMBER: 2005-003337-40: results.

Reducing therapeutic misconception: A randomized intervention trial in hypothetical clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Participants in clinical trials frequently fail to appreciate key differences between research and clinical care. This phenomenon, known as therapeutic misconception, undermines informed consent to clinical research, but to date there have been no effective interventions to reduce it and concerns have been expressed that to do so might impede recruitment. We determined whether a scientific reframing intervention reduces therapeutic misconception without significantly reducing willingness to participate in hypothetical clinical trials. METHODS: This prospective randomized trial was conducted from 2015 to 2016 to test the efficacy of an informed consent intervention based on scientific reframing compared to a traditional informed consent procedure (control) in reducing therapeutic misconception among patients considering enrollment in hypothetical clinical trials modeled on real-world studies for one of five disease categories. Patients with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, coronary artery disease, head/neck cancer, breast cancer, and major depression were recruited from medical clinics and a clinical research volunteer database. The primary outcomes were therapeutic misconception, as measured by a validated, ten-item Therapeutic Misconception Scale (range = 10-50), and willingness to participate in the clinical trial. RESULTS: 154 participants completed the study (age range, 23-87 years; 92.3% white, 56.5% female); 74 (48.1%) had been randomized to receive the experimental intervention. Therapeutic misconception was significantly lower (p = 0.004) in the scientific reframing group (26.4, 95% CI [23.7 to 29.1] compared to the control group (30.9, 95% CI [28.4 to 33.5], and remained so after controlling for education (p = 0.017). Willingness to participate in the hypothetical trial was not significantly different (p = 0.603) between intervention (52.1%, 95% CI [40.2% to 62.4%]) and control (56.3%, 95% CI [45.3% to 66.6%] groups. CONCLUSIONS: An enhanced educational intervention augmenting traditional informed consent led to a meaningful reduction in therapeutic misconception without a statistically significant change in willingness to enroll in hypothetical clinical trials. Additional study of this intervention is required in real-world clinical trials.

Variations in Unrealistic Optimism Between Acceptors and Decliners of Early Phase Cancer Trials.

Research has found that patient-subjects in early phase cancer trials exhibit unrealistic optimism regarding the risks and possible benefits of trial participation. Unrealistic optimism is associated with therapeutic misconception and failures to appreciate research-related information. This is the first study to assess whether those who decline to participate in these trials also exhibit unrealistic optimism. It is also the first study to assess whether there are significant differences in appreciation of research-related risks/benefits and therapeutic misconception between these two groups. We approached 261 patients at two academic medical centers who were offered enrollment in a Phase I, II, or I/II cancer trial (between 2012 and 2016). Two hundred thirty-three patients agreed to enroll in an early phase cancer trial, 171 of whom agreed to be interviewed for the study. Twenty-eight patients declined the offer to enroll, 15 of whom agreed to be interviewed for the study. Subjects participated in a structured face-to-face interview with a research associate trained to administer the study questionnaires. Acceptors demonstrated a significantly higher level of unrealistic optimism than decliners ( p < .05). Decliners had significantly less therapeutic misconception than acceptors (3.37 [ SD = 0.85] vs. 3.79 [ SD = 0.77], p = .042). There was a significant difference on one of the appreciation questions between acceptors and decliners ( p = .009). Comparative assessment of acceptors and decliners to early phase cancer trials casts light on whether unrealistic optimism is consequential for the decision to participate in these trials. The different levels of unrealistic optimism exhibited by these groups suggest that it may be a factor that affects the decision to participate.

The Meanings of Helping: An Analysis of Cystic Fibrosis Patients' Reasons for Participating in Biomedical Research.

Research participants often report wanting to help as a reason for participation, but who they want to help and why is rarely explored. We examined meanings associated with helping among 21 adults with cystic fibrosis (CF)-a group with high participation in research. Meanings included helping to advance research, helping others with CF, helping as their job, helping themselves, helping because they are special, and helping to give back. While some meanings were primarily oriented toward helping others, some also involved hoping for benefits for oneself, and some included feelings of responsibility. Despite indicating that they understood that research is not designed to help them directly, participants nevertheless hoped that it might. We discuss implications for research ethics oversight.

Dispelling misconceptions in the management of familial adenomatous polyposis.

Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis require surgical intervention at some point in their lives. The diagnosis is often apparent from their phenotype and family history, however, this is not always the case. Many factors can influence the surgical strategy although the polyposis burden and distribution remain the main consideration. While prophylactic removal of the rectum and colon is often required, sparing the rectum at the index surgery is safe in select patients. This article aims to dispel misconceptions in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.