Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent

Abstract

Background Clinical cancer research trials may offer little or no direct clinical benefit to participants where a cure is no longer possible. As such, the decision-making and consent process for patient participation is often challenging. Aim To gain understanding of how patients make decisions regarding clinical trial participation, from the perspective of both the patient and healthcare professionals involved. Methods In-depth, face to face interviews using a grounded theory approach. This study was conducted in a regional Cancer Centre in the United Kingdom. Of the 36 interviews, 16 were conducted with patients with cancer that had non-curative intent and 18 with healthcare professionals involved in the consent process. Results ‘Nothing to lose’ was identified as the core category that underpinned all other data within the study. This highlighted the desperation articulated by participants, who asserted trial participation was the ‘only hope in the room’. The decision regarding participation was taken within a ‘trusting relationship’ that was important to both patients and professionals. Both were united in their ‘fight against cancer’. These two categories are critical in understanding the decision-making/consent process and are supported by other themes presented in the theoretical model. Conclusion This study presents an important insight into the complex and ethically contentious situation of consent in clinical trials that have non-curative intent. It confirms that patients with limited options trust their doctor and frequently hold unrealistic hopes for personal benefit. It highlights a need for further research to develop a more robust and context appropriate consent process.

Experiences and perceptions of patients with psoriatic arthritis participating in a trial of faecal microbiota transplantation: a nested qualitative study

“…Another explanation could be that the participants were, to varying degree, desperate to get better or were eager to support research into alternative treatment options, and consequently, neglected considering potential negative effects of their trial participation. Although this issue has been only scarcely investigated in patients with inflammatory arthritis, the phenomenon is well known among patients suffering from severe diseases with reduced life expectancy, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis 31 and cancer, 32 who may be more desperate to find a cure and less concerned about side effects of new treatment. Moreover, as mentioned above, patients with PsA who are treated with MTX are often ‘used to’ suffering side effects.…”

Successful Strategies and Areas of Improvement–Lessons Learned from Design and Conduction of a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial in Palliative Care, ‘Palliative-D’

“…Further, they are often heavily medicated, and further pharmacological intervention increases the risk of side effects and drug-drug interactions. Mutual trust between the physician and the patient have been stated as a promoting factor for trials conducted in the palliative care context to address these ethical issues [86].…”

Patient, Relative and Staff Experiences of Clinical Trial Participation in Neurooncology: “Maybe You Can Also Show the Positive, No Matter How It Ends”

“…These findings are in line with other studies emphasizing that the unique care crucially shapes the experience of oncological and non-oncological patients' trial participation. [34][35][36][37][38][39][40] Finally, most of the interviewed oncologists by Murphy et al outlined that they thought trial patients would receive better care. 39 However, it should be noted that our study did not assess whether quality of care or health outcomes were better within the scope of trial participation compared to regular care.…”