Search

Background: Clinical trials are necessary for the advancement of cancer treatment and care, however low rates of participation in such trials limit the generalisability of findings. The objective of this study was to examine the proportion of medical oncology outpatients in Australia who are invited and consent to participate in clinical trials and the factors associated with this.Methods: A sample of adult medical oncology patients was recruited from three Australian cancer treatment centres. Consenting patients completed two paper-and-pencil surveys; one at the time of consent and another approximately 1 month later. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to explore factors associated with invitation and participation in a trial.Results: Thirty-eight percent (n = 146) of the 383 participants reported they had been invited to take part in a clinical trial. Of those invited, 93% reported consenting to participate in the trial, with the majority indicating that they did not regret their decision (89%). Treatment centre and time since diagnosis were significantly associated with being invited to take part in a clinical trial. None of the factors examined were associated with clinical trial consent rates.Conclusions: The main barrier to clinical trial participation is not being invited to do so, with the centre the patient attends being a modifiable determinant of whether or not they are invited. Increasing the resources available to treatment centres to ensure all patients are offered participation in trials they are eligible for may help to improve rates of trial participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High rates of anxiety, depression and unmet needs are evident amongst haematological cancer patients undergoing treatment and their Support Persons. Psychosocial distress may be minimised by ensuring that patients are sufficiently involved in decision making, provided with tailored information and adequate preparation for potentially threatening procedures. To date, there are no published studies evaluating interventions designed to reduce psychosocial distress and unmet needs specifically in patients with haematological cancers and their Support Persons. This study will examine whether access to a web-based information tool and nurse-delivered telephone support reduces depression, anxiety and unmet information needs for haematological cancer patients and their Support Persons. Methods/Design: A non-blinded, parallel-group, multi-centre randomised controlled trial will be conducted to compare the effectiveness of a web-based information tool and nurse-delivered telephone support with usual care. Participants will be recruited from the haematology inpatient wards of five hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Patients diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, Burkitt's lymphoma, Lymphoblastic lymphoma (B or T cell), or Diffuse Large B-Cell lymphoma and their Support Persons will be eligible to participate. Patients and their Support Persons will be randomised as dyads. Participants allocated to the intervention will receive access to a tailored web-based tool that provides accurate, up-to-date and personalised information about: cancer and its causes; treatment options including treatment procedures information; complementary and alternative medicine; and available support. Patients and Support Persons will complete self-report measures of anxiety, depression and unmet needs at 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks post-recruitment. Patient and Support Person outcomes will be assessed independently. Discussion: This study will assess whether providing information and support using web-based and telephone support address the major psychosocial challenges faced by haematological patients and their Support Persons. The approach, if found to be effective, has potential to improve psychosocial outcomes for haematological and other cancer patients, reduce the complexity and burden of meeting patients' psychosocial needs for health care providers with high potential for translation into clinical practice. Trial registration: ACTRN12612000720819. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This review aimed to examine (a) trends in the number of publications on unmet needs over time and (b) the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce unmet needs among cancer patients. Methods: An electronic literature search of Medline to explore trends in the number of publications on patients' unmet needs and an additional literature search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and Web of Science databases to identify methodologically rigorous research trials that evaluated interventions to reduce unmet needs were conducted. Results: Publications per year on unmet needs have increased over time, with most being on descriptive research. Nine relevant trials were identified. Six trials reported no intervention effect. Three trials reported that intervention participants had a lower number of unmet needs or lower unmet needs score, compared to control participants. Of these, one study found that the intervention group had fewer supportive care needs and lower mean depression scores; one study found that intervention participants with high problem-solving skills had fewer unmet needs at follow-up; and one study found an effect in favor of the intervention group on psychological need subscale scores. Conclusions: Reasons for varying results across trials and the limited effectiveness of unmet needs interventions are more broadly discussed. These include inadequacies in psychometric rigor, problems with scoring methods, the use of ineffective interventions, and lack of adherence to intervention protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression is highly prevalent yet often poorly detected and treated among cancer patients. In light of the move towards evidence-based healthcare policy, we have developed a simple tool that can assist policy makers, organisations and researchers to logically think through the steps involved in improving patient outcomes, and to help guide decisions about where to allocate resources. Methods: The model assumes that a series of filters operate to determine outcomes and cost-effectiveness associated with depression care for cancer patients, including: detection of depression, provider response to detection, patient acceptance of treatment, and effectiveness of treatment provided. To illustrate the utility of the model, hypothetical data for baseline and four scenarios in which filter outcomes were improved by 15% were entered into the model. Results: The model provides outcomes including: number of people successfully treated, total costs per scenario, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per scenario compared to baseline. The hypothetical data entered into the model illustrate the relative effectiveness (in terms of the number of additional incremental successes) and relative cost-effectiveness (in terms of cost per successful outcome and total cost) of making changes at each step or filter. Conclusions: The model provides a readily accessible tool to assist decision makers to think through the steps involved in improving depression outcomes for cancer patents. It provides transparent guidance about how to best allocate resources, and highlights areas where more reliable data are needed. The filter model presents an opportunity to improve on current practice by ensuring that a logical approach, which takes into account the available evidence, is applied to decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]