Decision-making and autonomy among participants in early-phase cancer immunotherapy trials: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Participants considering early-phase cancer clinical trials (CTs) need to understand the unique risks and benefits prior to providing informed consent. This qualitative study explored the factors that influence patients' decisions about participating in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs through the ethical lens of relational autonomy. METHODS: Using an interpretive descriptive design, interviews were conducted with 21 adult patients with advanced cancer who had enrolled in an early-phase CT. Data was analyzed using relational autonomy ethical theory and constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: The extent to which participants perceived themselves as having a choice to participate in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs was a central construct. Perceptions of choice varied according to whether participants characterized their experience as an act of desperation or as an opportunity to receive a novel treatment. Intersecting psychosocial and structural factors influenced participants' decision making about participating in early-phase cancer immunotherapy trials. These relational factors included: (1) being provided with hope; (2) having trust; (3) having the ability to withdraw; and (4) timing constraints. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the continuum of perceived choice that exists among patients with cancer when considering participation in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs. All participants were interpreted as exhibiting some degree of relational autonomy within the psychosocial and structural context of early-phase CT decision making. This study offers insights into the intersection of cancer care delivery, personal beliefs and values, and established CT processes and structures that can inform future practices and policies associated with early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs to better support patients in making informed decisions.

Mitigating inequity: ethically prioritizing patients for CAR T-cell therapy.

Manufacturing capacity and institutional infrastructure to deliver chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies (CAR-T) are pressured to keep pace with the growing number of approved products and expanding eligible patient population for this potentially life-saving therapy. Consequently, many cell therapy programs must make difficult decisions about which patient should get the next available treatment slot. This situation requires an ethical framework to ensure fair and equitable decision-making. In this perspective, we discuss the application of Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R), a priority-setting framework grounded in procedural justice, to the problem of limited CAR-T slots at our institution. We formed a multidisciplinary working group spanning several hematological malignancies. Through multiple rounds of partner engagement, we used A4R guiding principles to identify 4 main criteria to prioritize patients for CAR-T: medical benefit, safety/risk of complications, psychosocial factors, and medical urgency. Associated measures/tools and an implementation process were developed. We discuss further how ethical principles of fairness and equity demand a consistent approach within health systems that does not disadvantage medically underserved or underrepresented populations and supports overcoming barriers to care. In our commitment to transparency and collaboration, we make our tools available to others, ideally to be used to engage in their own A4R process, adapting the tools to their unique environments. Our hope is that our preliminary work will support the advancement of further study in this area globally, aiming for justice in resource allocation for all potential CAR-T candidates, wherever they may seek care.

Neuro-oncology clinicians' perspectives on factors affecting brain cancer patients' access to medical assistance in dying: A qualitative study.

In most jurisdictions where medical assistance in dying (MAiD) is legal, patients must have decision-making capacity. Brain cancer often damages the cognitive networks required to maintain decision-making capacity. Using qualitative methodology guided by a relational ethics conceptual framework, this study explored neuro-oncology clinicians' perspectives on access to and eligibility for MAiD for patients diagnosed with brain cancer. We interviewed 24 neuro-oncology clinicians from 6 countries. Participants described the unique challenges facing brain cancer patients, potentially resulting in their inequitable access to MAiD. The findings highlight the importance of early end-of-life conversations, advance care planning, and access to end-of-life treatment options.

Clinical ethics consultations: a scoping review of reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical ethics consultations (CEC) can be complex interventions, involving multiple methods, stakeholders, and competing ethical values. Despite longstanding calls for rigorous evaluation in the field, progress has been limited. The Medical Research Council (MRC) proposed guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of complex interventions. The evaluation of CEC may benefit from application of the MRC framework to advance the transparency and methodological rigor of this field. A first step is to understand the outcomes measured in evaluations of CEC in healthcare settings. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this review was to identify and map the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC. The secondary objective was to provide a comprehensive overview of CEC structures, processes, and roles to enhance understanding and to inform standardization. METHODS: We searched electronic databases to identify primary studies of CEC involving patients, substitute decision-makers and/or family members, clinicians, healthcare staff and leaders. Outcomes were mapped across five conceptual domains as identified a priori based on our clinical ethics experience and preliminary literature searches and revised based on our emerging interpretation of the data. These domains included personal factors, process factors, clinical factors, quality, and resource factors. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies were included in the review. Studies were highly heterogeneous and varied considerably regarding format and process of ethical intervention, credentials of interventionist, population of study, outcomes reported, and measures employed. In addition, few studies used validated measurement tools. The top three outcome domains that studies reported on were quality (n = 31), process factors (n = 23), and clinical factors (n = 19). The majority of studies examined multiple outcome domains. All five outcome domains were multidimensional and included a variety of subthemes. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review represents the initial phase of mapping the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC and identifying gaps in the evidence. The confirmed lack of standardization represents a hindrance to the provision of high quality intervention and CEC scientific progress. Insights gained can inform the development of a core outcome set to standardize outcome measures in CEC evaluation research and enable scientifically rigorous efficacy trials of CEC.

A Race to the End: Family Caregivers' Experience of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD)-a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The June 2016 legalization of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) provided an added layer of choice to end-of-life care in Canada. Family caregivers play an important role in patient end-of-life decision-making. They may experience unique psychological burden or distress associated with their role. However, we know little about the caregiver experience associated with patient MAiD requests and the nature of psychosocial supports caregivers require before, during, and following MAiD intervention. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to better understand the caregiver experience of MAiD within the Canadian legal landscape following Bill C-14. DESIGN: Caregiver experience was examined based on qualitative, semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 22 caregivers of patients who had requested MAiD were interviewed. APPROACH: Transcripts were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed based on grounded theory methodology. KEY RESULTS: The caregiver experience of MAiD within the legal framework was found to be understood as a "race to the end," with the ultimate goal of creating an ideal dying experience for the patient while balancing a threat to capacity that would undermine their access to MAiD. Caregivers can be described within the overarching framework as either co-runners or onlookers. Sources of caregiver distress were linked to these roles. CONCLUSIONS: The "race to the end" theoretical model contributes new knowledge and understanding that can inform the development of tailored support services for caregivers, the impact of legislative changes on this population, and future research examining decision-making near end of life and the caregiver experience.

Medical Assistance in Dying in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers: a mixed methods longitudinal study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The legal criteria for medical assistance in dying (MAiD) for adults with a grievous and irremediable medical condition were established in Canada in 2016. There has been concern that potentially reversible states of depression or demoralization may contribute to the desire for death (DD) and requests for MAiD. However, little is known about the emergence of the DD in patients, its impact on caregivers, and to what extent supportive care interventions affect the DD and requests for MAiD. The present observational study is designed to determine the prevalence, predictors, and experience of the DD, requests for MAiD and MAiD completion in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer and the impact of these outcomes on their primary caregivers. METHODS: A cohort of patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumour cancers and their primary caregivers will be recruited from a large tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, to a longitudinal, mixed methods study. Participants will be assessed at baseline for diagnostic information, sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, quality of life, physical and psychological distress, attitudes about the DD and MAiD, communication with physicians, advance care planning, and use of psychosocial and palliative care interventions. Measures will subsequently be completed every six months and at the time of MAiD requests. Quantitative assessments will be supplemented by qualitative interviews in a subset of participants, selected using quota sampling methods. DISCUSSION: This study has the potential to add importantly to our understanding of the prevalence and determinants of the DD, MAiD requests and completions in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer and of the experience of both patients and caregivers in this circumstance. The findings from this study may also assist healthcare providers in their conversations about MAiD and the DD with patients and caregivers, inform healthcare providers to ensure appropriate access to MAiD, and guide modifications being considered to broaden MAiD legislation and policy.

Neuro-Oncology Clinicians' Attitudes and Perspectives on Medical Assistance in Dying.

BACKGROUND: Medical assistance in dying (MAiD), also known as physician-assisted death, is currently legal in several locations across the globe. Brain cancer or its treatments can lead to cognitive impairment, which can impact decision-making capacity for MAiD. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore neuro-oncology clinicians' attitudes and perspectives on MAiD, including interpretation of decision-making capacity for patient MAiD eligibility. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to members of national and international neuro-oncology societies. We asked questions about decision-making capacity and MAiD, in part using hypothetical patient scenarios. Multiple choice and free-text responses were captured. RESULTS: There were 125 survey respondents. Impaired cognition was identified as the most important factor that would signal a decline in patient capacity. At least 26% of survey respondents had moral objections to MAiD. Respondents thought that different hypothetical patients had capacity to make a decision about MAiD (range 18%-58%). In other hypothetical scenarios, fewer clinicians were willing to support a MAiD decision for a patient with an oligodendroglioma (26%) vs. glioblastoma (41%-70%, depending on the scenario). Time since diagnosis, performance status, and patient age seemed to affect support for MAiD decisions (Fisher's exact P-values 0.007, < 0.001, and 0.049, respectively). CONCLUSION: While there are differing opinions on the moral permissibility of MAiD in general and for neuro-oncology patients, most clinicians agree that capacity must be assessed carefully before a decision is made. End-of-life discussions should happen early, before the capacity is lost. Our results can inform assessments of patient capacity in jurisdictions where MAiD is legal.

Gatekeeping in cancer clinical trials in Canada: The ethics of recruiting the "ideal" patient.

BACKGROUND: Perspectives of clinical trial (CT) personnel on accrual to oncology CTs are relatively absent from the literature. This study explores CT personnel's experience recruiting patients to oncology CTs. METHODS: A qualitative study design was utilized. In-depth, individual interviews with 12 oncology CT personnel were conducted, including six CT nurses and six physician-investigators. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were subjected to thematic and ethical analysis to identify key concepts and themes. RESULTS: CT personnel reported considering two ethical commitments in CT recruitment: maintaining trial integrity and ensuring patient autonomy through obtaining informed consent. The process of gatekeeping emerged as a way to navigate these ethical commitments during CT accrual. Gatekeeping was influenced by: (a) perceptions of patients' personal suitability for a trial, and (b) healthcare resources and infrastructure. CT personnel's discernment of personal suitability was influenced by patients' cognitive and mental health status, language and cultural background, geographic location, family support, and disease status. Three structural factors impacted gatekeeping: complexity of CTs, consent process, and time limitations in the healthcare system. CT personnel experienced most factors as constraints to accrual and gaining patients' informed consent. CONCLUSION: CT personnel discussed navigating ethical challenges in CT recruitment by offering enrollment to specific patient populations, exacerbating other ethical tensions. Systems-level strategies are needed to address barriers to ethical CT recruitment. Future research should investigate the role of policies and/or tools (eg, decision aids) to support patients and CT personnel's discussions about CT participation, promote more ethical recruitment, and potentially increase accrual.

First Ready, First to Go: Ethical Priority-Setting of Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant at a Major Cancer Centre.

Medical advancements have now made it possible to provide allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCTs) to older patients and use stem cells from less well-matched donors. This has resulted in access to a life-saving modality for a greater number of patients with imminent life-threatening illnesses. However, resources have not always kept pace with innovation and expanded volumes. During the summer of 2015 in the province of Ontario, Canada, inadequate resources contributed to a capacity crisis, resulting in extended wait-lists for allo-SCT across the province. This situation presented unique ethical challenges, including the need for ongoing negotiations with health system partners and nimble process management to ensure timely delivery of care. This article reports on the process one organization used to determine how to equitably allocate scarce allo-SCT resources. With the ever-expanding landscape of new and emerging medical technologies, our experience has implications for the ethics of translating other increasingly expensive health technologies to clinical care.

Evaluation of Adolescents' and Young Adults' Attitudes Toward Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Participation in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) remains the lowest of any patient group with cancer. Little is known about the personal barriers to AYA accrual. The aim of this study was to explore AYA attitudes that influence CCT participation. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used. AYAs and non-AYAs (≥ 40 years) completed the Cancer Treatment subscale of the Attitudes Toward Cancer Trials Scales and 9 supplementary questions formed from interview analysis. Differences between AYA and non-AYA cohorts were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the effect of demographics on perceptions of CCTs. RESULTS: Surveys were distributed to 61 AYAs (median age, 29 years; range, 17-39 years) and 74 non-AYAs (median age, 55 years; range, 40-88 years). Compared with non-AYAs, AYAs perceived CCTs to be unsafe/more difficult (Personal Barrier/Safety domain; P = .01). There were no differences based on age in other domains. AYAs were also more concerned with CCT interference in their long-term goals (P = .04). Multivariable ordered logistic regression identified increased personal barriers in the Personal Barrier/Safety domain for AYAs (P = .01), in patients with English as a second language (ESL; P < .01), and in patients previously not offered a clinical trial (P = .03). Long-term goals were identified as a barrier in particular tumor types (P = .01) and in patients with ESL (P < .01), with a trend identified in AYAs (P = .12). CONCLUSION: Age-related differences in attitudes toward CCTs suggest that tailored approaches to CCT accrual are warranted. Patient-centered delivery of information regarding CCTs, particularly in patients with ESL and who are trial naïve, may improve accrual.

Perceptions of and decision making about clinical trials in adolescent and young adults with Cancer: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent and young adults (AYA) enrolment rates into cancer clinical trials (CCT) are the lowest of any age group globally. As AYA have distinct biological, psychosocial and relational needs, we aimed to explore any unique factors influencing their CCT decision-making process, including AYA-specific perceptions or attitudes towards CCT. METHODS: Qualitative interpretive descriptive methodology was used to explore AYA perceptions and decision-making related to CCT. An analytic approach conducive to inductive imagining and exploratory questioning was used in order to generate insights and interpret data. RESULTS: A total of 21 AYA were interviewed (median age: 31 (18-39)). Twelve (57%) participants had previously been approached to participate in CCT. Major themes influencing trial enrolment decisions were: 1) severity of illness/urgency for new treatment 2) side effect profile of investigational drug in the short and long term (e.g., impact on future quality of life) 3) who approached patient for trial participation (oncologist vs. other) 4) additional information found on-line about the trial and investigators, and 5) family, friends and peer group opinion regarding the CCT. CONCLUSIONS: Several psychosocial and relational factors were identified as influencing AYA CCT decisions, some of which are unique to this demographic. Specific strategies to address barriers to CCT and enable supportive decision-making include: 1) involving family in decision-making and 2) helping AYA appreciate short- and long-term implications of trial participation. Finally, exploring social networking and general education about CCT that AYA can independently access may increase participation.

A risk screening tool for ethical appraisal of evidence-generating initiatives.

BACKGROUND: The boundaries between health-related research and practice have become blurred as initiatives traditionally considered to be practice (e.g., quality improvement, program evaluation) increasingly use the same methodology as research. Further, the application of different ethical requirements based on this distinction raises concerns because many initiatives commonly labelled as "non-research" are associated with risks to patients, participants, and other stakeholders, yet may not be subject to any ethical oversight. Accordingly, we sought to develop a tool to facilitate the systematic identification of risks to human participants and determination of risk level across a broad range of projects (e.g., clinical research, laboratory-based projects, population-based surveillance, and program evaluation) and health-related contexts. This paper describes the development of the Public Health Ontario (PHO) Risk Screening Tool. METHOD: Development of the PHO Risk Screening Tool included: (1) preparation of a draft risk tool (n = 47 items); (2) expert appraisal; (3) internal stakeholder validation; (4) external validation; (5) pilot testing and evalution of the draft tool; and (6) revision after 1 year of testing. RESULTS: A risk screening tool was generated consisting of 20 items organized into five risk domains: Sensitivity; Participant Selection, Recruitment and Consent; Data/Sample Collection; Identifiability and Privacy Risk; and Commercial Interests. The PHO Risk Screening Tool is an electronic tool, designed to identify potential project-associated risks to participants and communities and to determine what level of ethics review is required, if any. The tool features an easy to use checklist format that generates a risk score (0-3) associated with a suggested level of ethics review once all items have been completed. The final score is based on a threshold approach to ensure that the final score represents the highest level of risk identified in any of the domains of the tool. CONCLUSIONS: The PHO Risk Screening Tool offers a practical solution to the problem of how to maintain accountability and appropriate risk oversight that transcends the boundaries of research and practice. We hope that the PHO Risk Screening Tool will prove useful in minimizing the problems of over and under protection across a wide range of disciplines and jurisdictions.

Cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation: an integrative review with implications for patients' relational autonomy.

PURPOSE: Oncology clinical trials are necessary for the improvement of patient care as they have the ability to confirm the efficacy and safety of novel cancer treatments and in so doing, contribute to a solid evidence base on which practitioners and patients can make informed treatment decisions. However, only 3-5 % of adult cancer patients enroll in clinical trials. Lack of participation compromises the success of clinical trials and squanders an opportunity for improving patient outcomes. This literature review summarizes the factors and contexts that influence cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation. METHODS: An integrative review was undertaken within PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases for articles written between 1995 and 2012 and archived under relevant keywords. Articles selected were data-based, written in English, and limited to adult cancer patients. RESULTS: In the 51 articles reviewed, three main types of factors were identified that influence cancer patients' decision making about participation in clinical trials: personal, social, and system factors. Subthemes included patients' trust in their physician and the research process, undue influence within the patient-physician relationship, and systemic social inequalities. How these factors interact and influence patients' decision-making process and relational autonomy, however, is insufficiently understood. CONCLUSIONS: Future research is needed to further elucidate the sociopolitical barriers and facilitators of clinical trial participation and to enhance ethical practice within clinical trial enrolment. This research will inform targeted education and support interventions to foster patients' relational autonomy in the decision-making process and potentially improve clinical trial participation rates.

SARS and hospital priority setting: a qualitative case study and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Priority setting is one of the most difficult issues facing hospitals because of funding restrictions and changing patient need. A deadly communicable disease outbreak, such as the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in Toronto in 2003, amplifies the difficulties of hospital priority setting. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate priority setting in a hospital in response to SARS using the ethical framework 'accountability for reasonableness'. METHODS: This study was conducted at a large tertiary hospital in Toronto, Canada. There were two data sources: 1) over 200 key documents (e.g. emails, bulletins), and 2) 35 interviews with key informants. Analysis used a modified thematic technique in three phases: open coding, axial coding, and evaluation. RESULTS: Participants described the types of priority setting decisions, the decision making process and the reasoning used. Although the hospital leadership made an effort to meet the conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness', they acknowledged that the decision making was not ideal. We described good practices and opportunities for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: 'Accountability for reasonableness' is a framework that can be used to guide fair priority setting in health care organizations, such as hospitals. In the midst of a crisis such as SARS where guidance is incomplete, consequences uncertain, and information constantly changing, where hour-by-hour decisions involve life and death, fairness is more important rather than less.