Conduct of cancer clinical trials: a qualitative study reporting views of patients, caregivers, public and clinical researchers.

IF 1.3 Q4 ONCOLOGY
ecancermedicalscience Pub Date : 2025-07-22 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2025.1950
Soumitra S Datta, Bidisha Samanta, Sanjoy Chatterjee, Indranil Mallick, Atul Sharma, Gargi Gangopadhyay, Shreshta Chattopadhyay, Chitralekha Bhowmick, Neha Chawla, Caroline Clarke, Duncan Gilbert, Usha Menon
{"title":"Conduct of cancer clinical trials: a qualitative study reporting views of patients, caregivers, public and clinical researchers.","authors":"Soumitra S Datta, Bidisha Samanta, Sanjoy Chatterjee, Indranil Mallick, Atul Sharma, Gargi Gangopadhyay, Shreshta Chattopadhyay, Chitralekha Bhowmick, Neha Chawla, Caroline Clarke, Duncan Gilbert, Usha Menon","doi":"10.3332/ecancer.2025.1950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rising cancer burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been accompanied by an increase in clinical trials. However, there is a paucity of research from LMICs on patient preferences for trial participation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We undertook a cross-sectional qualitative study using in-depth interviewing to explore the views of Indian cancer patients (<i>n</i> = 11), caregivers(<i>n</i> = 10) and public (<i>n</i> = 10), regarding clinical trials. Clinical researchers (<i>n</i> = 10) were also interviewed. Data were analysed using the framework of qualitative content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five themes were identified regarding clinical trials: a) <b><i>Perception</i>:</b> Only a minority had a prior understanding; when explained, most were willing to be randomised and attend additional monitoring visits. b) <b><i>Recruitment</i>:</b> Consensus that trial discussions should be with the patient, with caregivers and family included where appropriate, variability in when a patient should be first approached. c) <i>Patient</i> <b><i>information</i>:</b> Need for both written and audio-visual information material using simple local language. d) <b><i>Benefits/adverse effects</i></b> : Discussion of all pros and cons, including the possibility of dying was preferred. There were divided views regarding disclosure of all versus common risks. Challenges in understanding quantitative risks/benefits were voiced. e) <b><i>Consent:</i></b> Honesty and transparency, imbalance of power/trust between trialists and participants and financial vulnerability of patients were voiced by participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cancer clinical trials in LMICs can be enriched by patient and public involvement during planning research and conduct of the clinical trial. The financial vulnerability of patients and the power imbalance between them and researchers need to be addressed, especially in international multiregional clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":11460,"journal":{"name":"ecancermedicalscience","volume":"19 ","pages":"1950"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12426491/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ecancermedicalscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2025.1950","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The rising cancer burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been accompanied by an increase in clinical trials. However, there is a paucity of research from LMICs on patient preferences for trial participation.

Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional qualitative study using in-depth interviewing to explore the views of Indian cancer patients (n = 11), caregivers(n = 10) and public (n = 10), regarding clinical trials. Clinical researchers (n = 10) were also interviewed. Data were analysed using the framework of qualitative content analysis.

Results: Five themes were identified regarding clinical trials: a) Perception: Only a minority had a prior understanding; when explained, most were willing to be randomised and attend additional monitoring visits. b) Recruitment: Consensus that trial discussions should be with the patient, with caregivers and family included where appropriate, variability in when a patient should be first approached. c) Patient information: Need for both written and audio-visual information material using simple local language. d) Benefits/adverse effects : Discussion of all pros and cons, including the possibility of dying was preferred. There were divided views regarding disclosure of all versus common risks. Challenges in understanding quantitative risks/benefits were voiced. e) Consent: Honesty and transparency, imbalance of power/trust between trialists and participants and financial vulnerability of patients were voiced by participants.

Conclusion: Cancer clinical trials in LMICs can be enriched by patient and public involvement during planning research and conduct of the clinical trial. The financial vulnerability of patients and the power imbalance between them and researchers need to be addressed, especially in international multiregional clinical trials.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

开展癌症临床试验:一项定性研究,报告患者、护理人员、公众和临床研究人员的观点。
背景:低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)癌症负担的增加伴随着临床试验的增加。然而,中低收入国家关于患者参与试验偏好的研究很少。方法:采用深度访谈的横断面定性研究,探讨印度癌症患者(n = 11)、护理人员(n = 10)和公众(n = 10)对临床试验的看法。临床研究人员(n = 10)也进行了访谈。数据分析采用定性内容分析的框架。结果:在临床试验中确定了五个主题:a)感知:只有少数人有事先的理解;在解释后,大多数人愿意被随机分配并参加额外的监测访问。b)招募:一致认为应与患者进行试验讨论,适当时包括护理人员和家属,首次接触患者的时间存在差异。c)患者信息:需要使用简单当地语言的书面和视听信息材料。d)益处/不利影响:优先考虑所有利弊,包括死亡的可能性。关于披露所有风险和共同风险的观点存在分歧。在理解定量风险/收益方面存在挑战。e)同意:参与者表达了诚实和透明,试验人员和参与者之间权力/信任的不平衡以及患者的经济脆弱性。结论:在规划研究和临床试验实施过程中,患者和公众的参与可以丰富中低收入国家的癌症临床试验。患者的经济脆弱性以及他们与研究人员之间的权力不平衡需要得到解决,特别是在国际多地区临床试验中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.60%
发文量
138
审稿时长
27 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信