Search

Background: Recruitment of cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants, especially participants representing the diversity of the US population, is necessary to create successful medications and a continual challenge. These challenges are amplified in Phase I cancer trials that focus on evaluating the safety of new treatments and are the gateway to treatment development. In preparation for recruitment to a Phase I recurrent head and neck cancer (HNC) trial, we assessed perceived barriers to participation or referral and suggestions for recruitment among people with HNC and community physicians (oncologist, otolaryngologist or surgeon). Methods: Between December 2020 and February 2022, we conducted a qualitative needs assessment via semistructured interviews with a race and ethnicity‐stratified sample of people with HNC (n = 30: 12 non‐Hispanic White, 9 non‐Hispanic African American, 8 Hispanic and 1 non‐Hispanic Pacific Islander) and community physicians (n = 16) within the University of Florida Health Cancer Center catchment area. Interviews were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis approach to describe perspectives and identify relevant themes. Results: People with HNC reported thematic barriers included: concerns about side effects, safety and efficacy; lack of knowledge and systemic and environmental obstacles. Physicians identified thematic barriers of limited physician knowledge; clinic and physician barriers and structural barriers. People with HNC and physicians recommended themes included: improved patient education, dissemination of trial information and interpersonal communication between community physicians and CCT staff. Conclusions: The themes identified by people with HNC and community physicians are consistent with research efforts and recommendations on how to increase the participation of people from minoritized populations in CCTs. This community needs assessment provides direction on the selection of strategies to increase CCT participation and referral. Patient or Public Contribution: This study focused on people with HNC and community physicians' lived experience and their interpretations of how they would consider a future Phase I clinical trial. In addition to our qualitative data reflecting community voices, a community member reviewed the draft interview guide before data collection and both people with HNC and physicians aided interpretation of the findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Complementary and integrative health (CIH) use is diverse and highly prevalent worldwide. Prior research of CIH communication in biomedical encounters address safety, efficacy, symptom management, and overall wellness. Observational methods are rarely used to study CIH communication and avoid recall bias, preserve ecological validity, and contextualize situated clinical communication. Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed studies at the intersection of social scientific observational research and findings about CIH communication between clinicians, patients, and caregivers in biomedical settings. We identified international, peer-reviewed publications from seven databases between January 2010 and December 2020. Titles and abstracts were first screened for inclusion, then full studies were coded using explicit criteria. We used a standard checklist was modified to assess article quality. Ten of 11,793 studies examined CIH communication using observational methods for CIH communication in biomedical settings. Studies used a range of observational techniques, including participant and non-participant observation, which includes digital audio or video recordings. Results generated two broad sets of findings, one focused on methodological insights and another on CIH communication. Despite methodological and topic similarities, included studies addressed CIH communication as a process and as proximal and intermediate health outcomes. We recommend how observational studies of CIH communication can better highlight relationships between communication processes and health outcomes. Current research using observational methods offers an incomplete picture of CIH communication in biomedical settings. Future studies should standardize how observational techniques are reported to enhance consistency and comparability within and across biomedical settings to improve comparability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Only 5–8% of adults with cancer participate in cancer clinical trials (CCTs), with even lower rates among underrepresented groups. Improving oncologists' communication skills may enhance the frequency and quality of their discussions with patients about CCTs, consequently increasing participation. However, little is known about interest in or presence of CCT-related communication training during Hematology-Oncology (Hem-Onc) fellowships. This study aimed to describe, from the perspective of Hem-Onc fellowship program directors (PDs): (1) the current landscape of CCT education for Hem-Onc fellows; (2) the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a CCT communication skills workshop for Hem-Onc fellows. Methods: We used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach. PDs were surveyed and interviewed about their graduate medical education (GME) programs' current CCT curriculum, training challenges, fellows' CCT knowledge and CCT communication skills, and preferences for a CCT communication workshop. Results: PDs were surveyed (n = 40) and interviewed (n = 12). PDs reported that their institutions prioritize CCT accrual (M = 4.58, SD =.78; 1-5 scale, 5 = "Strongly Agree") and clinical research training (M = 4.20, SD =.85). CCT skills that programs least often addressed were how to (1) discuss CCTs with newly diagnosed patients, (2) talk to patients about CCTs when none are available, and (3) help patients find CCTs at other institutions. PDs were interested in a CCT communication workshop for fellows ("yes" = 67.5%, "maybe" = 32.5%) and said training would be feasible (M = 4.28, SD =.78) and useful (M = 4.47, SD =.78). Qualitative results described programs' current approaches to CCT education and insights about developing and implementing CCT communication training. Conclusions: There is a clear need to improve CCT communication skills training in Hem-Onc fellowship programs and to implement and scale such training to increase CCT participation, especially among diverse patient populations. Furthermore, Hem-Onc GME PDs view such training as feasible and useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]