Search

Purpose To describe hopeful and persuasive messages communicated by physicians during informed consent for phase I trials and examine whether such communication is associated with physician and parent ratings of the likelihood of benefit, physician and parent ratings of the strength of the physician's recommendation to enroll, parent ratings of control, and parent ratings of perceived pressure. Patients and Methods Participants were children with cancer (n = 85) who were offered a phase I trial along with their parents and physicians. Informed consent conferences (ICCs) were audiotaped and coded for physician communication of hope and persuasion. Parents completed an interview (n = 60), and physicians completed a case-specific questionnaire. Results The most frequent hopeful statements related to expectations of positive outcomes and provision of options. Physicians failed to mention no treatment and/or palliative care as options in 68% of ICCs and that the disease was incurable in 85% of ICCs. When physicians mentioned no treatment and/or palliative care as options, both physicians and parents rated the physician's strength of recommendation to enroll in the trial lower. Conclusion Hopes and goals other than cure or longer life were infrequently mentioned, and a minority of physicians communicated that the disease was incurable and that no treatment and/or palliative care were options. These findings are of concern, given the low likelihood of medical benefit from phase I trials. Physicians have an important role to play in helping families develop alternative goals when no curative options remain.

To improve physician communication with parents using a physician-directed intervention (PDI), emphasizing a sequenced approach to the informed consent conference (ICC) for childhood leukemia clinical trials in which physicians discuss diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment prior to the offer of a clinical trial.Physicians and fellows at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Children's National Medical Center were recruited to participate in Informed Consent Seminars and subsequent half-day booster sessions. Training was followed by a multisite study of informed consent communication. Real-life ICCs were observed and audiotaped, and parents were interviewed after the ICC to ascertain their understanding. Data from the ICC and interview were then coded and analyzed. Trained physician performances were compared with untrained physicians (controls) at two other research sites. Data were collected from 2003 to 2007 at PDI sites and control sites for comparison.A total of 102 cases were included for initial analyses, with 60 cases from the PDI sites and 42 control cases. Fifty-nine cases were included in the final analysis. Findings revealed that trained physicians followed the sequenced approach more often when compared with controls. Similarly, physicians at the PDI sites tended to elicit parental questions and understanding in an open-ended way and clarify parents' questions more frequently than physicians at the control sites.Academic physicians who are involved in the current transformation of clinical research should be trained to conduct effective ICCs. The "see one, do one, teach one" approach is no longer adequate for informed consent.

Language interpreters mediate a growing number of health care communication events, including the informed consent process, which underlies the ethical conduct of clinical research. This article explores a key interpretive outcome, accuracy, in 21 Spanish/English informed consent consultations. Discussions were transcribed, translated, and coded according to established techniques. Most (74%) discussion was accurately interpreted (range: 47%-98%; std. deviation: .137). Accuracy was lower in the more technical portions of the discussion when compared with nontechnical portions such as discussion of coping and quality-of-life issues (p = .024). The concept of "randomization" often was poorly communicated and interpreted. These differences may be due in part to the use of long, uninterrupted, and jargon-filled sentences by clinicians explaining research, among other factors. The article concludes that accuracy may be promoted if clinicians used less technical language and shorter sentences, and are more "process driven." Interpreters may need to be better informed about research-related concepts such as randomization. Further research is needed to determine the effects of interpretive accuracy on the informed consent process, the decision to participate in research, and other outcomes.

Informed consent for a pediatric oncology phase 1 trial is a delicate process, and is made more complex by the difficulty of the information and the requirement for parental consent, and patient assent when applicable. This analysis identifies suggestions for improving the informed consent process received from parents and adolescent and young adult patients (aged 14 years-21 years) who had the option of participating in a phase 1 pediatric oncology trial.A total of 57 parents and 20 patients completed interviews as part of a multisite, prospective, descriptive study. These transcribed interviews were studied using established content analysis methods.Parent and patient responses contained 220 suggestions and 54 suggestions, respectively. A total of 21 unique suggestions for improvement emerged in 3 main themes: 1) provision of more information; 2) structure and presentation of the informed consent process, and 3) suggestions for physicians conducting the process. Common suggestions included providing more specific information about the trial, allowing more time for decision-making, and using different methods to deliver information.Participants involved in the informed consent process for a phase 1 trial provided specific recommendations to research teams to enhance the process. Physician/investigators should be informed of these recommendations and develop and test interventions incorporating them.