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%).

Evaluating the impact of the Patient Preference Assessment Tool on clinicians' recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Many groups recommend assessment of patient preferences particularly for patients with advanced, incurable cancer. We, therefore, developed the Patient Preference Assessment Tool (PPAT) to ascertain patient preferences in order to inform clinician recommendations and improve shared decision-making. The aim of this study is to assess the PPAT's impact on clinicians' strength of recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials. METHODS: Clinicians recorded the strength of their recommendation on a Likert scale before viewing the patient's PPAT. After viewing the PPAT, the clinician discussed the clinical trial with the patient and then recorded the strength of recommendation again. If there was a change, the clinician noted the reason for the change: clinical findings or patient preference. Clinicians were interviewed about the acceptability of the tool. Our threshold for determining if a change in recommendation due to the PPAT was significant was 20%, given the multiple factors influencing a clinician's recommendation. We also noted the type of phase I conversation observed based on classifications defined in prior work-priming, treatment-options, trial logistics, consent. RESULTS: N = 29. The strength of the clinicians' recommendations changed due to patient preferences in 7 of 29 (24%) of the conversations. The seven changes due to preferences were all in the 23 treatment-options conversations, for an impact rate of 30% in this type of conversation. 82% of clinicians found the PPAT useful. CONCLUSION: The PPAT was impactful in an academic setting, exceeding our 20% impact threshold. This tool helps achieve the important goal of incorporating patient preferences into shared decision-making about clinical trials.

The Impact of Genetic Counseling Educational Tools on Patients' Knowledge of Molecular Testing Terminology.

Molecular testing is increasingly being integrated into cancer management. Despite rapid advancements, little work has been done to explore strategies for communicating with patients undergoing molecular tumor testing. This study evaluated the impact of genetic counseling educational tools on improving patients' understanding of key terms related to molecular testing. A genetic counseling intern designed a picture book to explain six words found in prior research to be difficult to understand (mutation, germline mutation, somatic mutation, biomarker, molecular testing, and targeted therapy). Participants who had previously discussed molecular testing with their oncologist were asked to define the terms. The same participants then received an explanation of each term either from the intern using the picture book in person or from a video presentation of the picture book. They were then asked to redefine each term afterward. The difference between the number of terms defined correctly pre- and post-intervention was compared between presentations. Sixty-three patients with melanoma, colon, lung, or breast cancer were recruited. After both interventions, correct understanding rates improved for all six terms, with significant improvement for germline mutation (p < 0.001), somatic mutation (p < 0.001), biomarker (p < 0.001), and molecular testing (p < 0.001). Understanding of targeted therapy improved significantly (p = 0.011) for the video presentation only. Mean change in knowledge scores did not differ between the two interventions (intern presentation 3.2 vs. video 2.9, p = 0.428). Our data suggest that genetic counseling educational tools can increase patient understanding of terms used to describe molecular testing.

Provider Recommendations for Phase I Clinical Trials Within a Shared Decision-Making Model in Phase I Cancer Clinical Trial Discussions.

PURPOSE: Debate continues over whether explicit recommendations for a clinical trial should be included as an element of shared decision making within oncology. We aimed to determine if and how providers make explicit recommendations in the setting of phase I cancer clinical trials. METHODS: Twenty-three patient/provider conversations about phase I trials were analyzed to determine how recommendations are made and how the conversations align with a shared decision-making framework. In addition, 19 providers (9 of whose patient encounters were observed) were interviewed about the factors they consider when deciding whether to recommend a phase I trial. RESULTS: We found that providers are comprehensive in the factors they consider when recommending clinical trials. The two most frequently stated factors were performance status (89%) and patient preferences (84%). Providers made explicit recommendations in 19 conversations (83%), with 12 of those being for a phase I trial (12 [63%] of 19). They made these recommendations in a manner consistent with a shared decision-making model; 18 (95%) of the 19 conversations during which a recommendation was made included all steps, or all but 1 step, of shared decision making, as did 11 of the 12 conversations during which a phase I trial was recommended. In 7 (58%) of these later conversations, providers also emphasized the importance of the patient's opinion. CONCLUSION: We suggest that providers not hesitate to make explicit recommendations for phase I clinical trials, because they are able to do so in a manner consistent with shared decision making. With further research, these results can be applied to other clinical trial settings.