Search

Background It is critical patients understand the terms used to describe oncology treatments; however, even basic chemotherapy terminology can be misunderstood. Rural communities tend to have especially low levels of health literacy compared with nonrural communities. To address low health literacy in rural communities, this study tested rural participants' understanding of previously developed educational chemotherapy videos that were designed for an underserved urban population. Participants were also asked for feedback to determine if the videos could be improved. Methods Fifty English-speaking patients who reside in counties classified as rural according to the Rural-Urban Continuum Code designations (RUCC 4-9) participated in the study. Participants were asked to define 6 chemotherapy terms before and after viewing a short, animated video explaining the term in English. Rates of correct and incorrect definitions provided by participants were also compared with previously published results from an urban cohort. Results All participants had statistically significantly higher rates of correct definitions for all 6 terms following the video intervention. Palliative chemotherapy understanding improved the most (10% correct prevideo and 76% postvideo intervention). For each video, the majority of participants (77%-92%) suggested no changes to the videos. Conclusion Given the prevalence of low health literacy in rural communities, it is important to have effective educational interventions to improve the understanding of basic oncology-treatment terminology. This study found that short, educational videos, originally designed for an underserved urban population, can significantly improve understanding of commonly misunderstood chemotherapy terminology in a rural setting as well. Lay summary Chemotherapy terminology can be confusing to patients. Understanding can be especially difficult in areas with low health literacy, such as underserved urban and rural communities. To address this concern, previously developed short, animated videos describing basic chemotherapy terminology were found to improve patient understanding in an underserved urban setting. In this study, the videos were tested in a rural population and their effectiveness was established. Participants in the rural setting were significantly more likely to correctly define all 6 tested terms after watching the videos. Educational tools for high-need populations are essential to ensure patients can understand the treatment they receive.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy terminology is complex and can be difficult for patients to understand, threatening informed consent. The aims of this exploratory study are to determine whether patients understand immunotherapy terminology and if the provider defining the term improves patient understanding. METHODS: Conversations between oncology providers and patients discussing immunotherapy were observed(n=39), and technical terms used were noted. With consent, patients were interviewed post-conversation to assess their understanding of these terms(n=39). Comparisons of the terms were conducted using chi-square tests, Fisher’s exact tests, or ANOVA where appropriate. RESULTS: ‘Immunotherapy’ was the most difficult for participants to understand with 48.7% (19/39) correctly defining immunotherapy. ‘Immunotherapy agents’ was understood 53.8% (14/26) of the time. ‘Immune system’ was well understood (88.5%;23/26). Providers defined immunotherapy in 97.4% of conversations. There was no correlation between having immunotherapy defined in the conversation, and the likelihood of a correct definition (p=0.487). ‘Immune system’ was defined in 92.3% of conversations (n=26), and defining it in the conversation was correlated with increased patient understanding (p=0.009). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that patients have difficulty understanding some immunotherapy terminology. Since patient understanding of key terminology is crucial for informed consent and patient care, it is essential to implement interventions to improve understanding.

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.

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%).

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.

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.

e18638 Background: Immunotherapy terminology is often complex and can be difficult for patients to understand, threatening both informed consent and patient-centered communication. Improving patient-centered communication is fundamental to fostering a quality provider-patient relationship and has been shown to positively impact the length of time to initiating treatment and to optimize patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to determine whether patients understand basic immunotherapy terminology and if a provider defining the term improves patient understanding. Methods: Conversations between oncology providers and patients discussing immunotherapy for the first time, either as standard of care or as part of a clinical trial, were observed, audio recorded and transcribed (n = 39). Technical terms used in the conversation were noted by the research assistant. With consent, patients were interviewed post-conversation to assess their understanding of these technical terms used by the provider (n = 39). Comparisons of the terms (correct vs. incorrect) were conducted using chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact tests, where appropriate, for categorical variables, and using ANOVA for continuous variables. Results: Participants were mostly white (79.5%), had some college education (55.3%), had a personal income of > = $50k (56.7%), and had a family member with cancer (54.1%). The term ‘immunotherapy’ was the most difficult term for participants to understand with less than half (19/39; 48.7%) correctly defining it. The only demographic characteristic that was significantly correlated with understanding ‘immunotherapy’ was having a family member with cancer (p = 0.031). Immunotherapy agents, such as Pembro and Nivolumab, were defined correctly by patients 65% (19/29) of time). Interestingly ‘immune system’ was well understood (23/26; 88.5%). Providers defined immunotherapy in 97.4% of conversations. However, there was no correlation between having a provider define immunotherapy in the conversation, and the likelihood of participants correctly defining the term in the post-conversation interview (p = 0.487).The immune system was defined in 92.3% of conversations (n = 26), and defining immune system in the conversation was correlated with increased patient understanding (p = 0.009). Conclusions: Analysis of patient-provider conversations shows that patients have difficulty understanding some immunotherapy terminology. Since immunotherapy is a relatively new therapy, it may be more difficult for providers to translate it into lay language, which could be why patients lack understanding of ’immunotherapy’, even when provided with a definition. Since patient understanding of key terminology is essential for not only enhancing patient-centered communication, but for improving informed consent and optimizing patient outcomes, educational interventions should be developed to improve understanding.

7022 Background: Rural communities can have low health literacy, which impacts the adequacy of informed consent, adherence to treatment, and outcomes. We had previously created and tested educational videos about basic chemotherapy terminology for use in an underserved population at our inner-city hospital. This study aimed to determine if these videos increased understanding of these terms in rural communities. Methods: Through patient and provider interviews in an underserved urban setting, 20 basic cancer treatment terms were identified as frequently misunderstood. As a pilot, 6 of these terms were explained in short, animated one-minute videos using VideoScribe (Sparkol).To determine if these videos improved understanding in the rural setting, 50 rural patients, specified as patients living in a county ranked 4-9 on the USDA Rural Urban Continuum Code (RUCC) scale, were asked to define each term before and after viewing the video. All answers were audiotaped and double coded for correctness of definition pre and post video screening, using the video definition as the correct definition. Before video and after video correct definition rates were calculated, along with 95% exact binomial confidence intervals using the Clopper-Pearson method. The videos for all 20 terms can be viewed on CancerQuest ( https://www.cancerquest.org/media-center/videos/cancer-treatment-terms ). Results: Participants were mostly white (79%), female (52%), resided in the more rural counties RUCC ranked 6-9 (62%), had < a high school degree (56%) and had a family income of