Investigational New Drugs

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 700–705 | Cite as

Factual understanding of randomized clinical trials: a multicenter case-control study in cancer patients

  • Tanguy Leroy
  • Véronique Christophe
  • Nicolas Penel
  • Pascal Antoine
  • Stéphanie Clisant
PHASE III STUDIES

Summary

Objective Several reports have shown that despite the informed consent process, enrolled patients misunderstand the modalities and goals of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We believe that this may be linked to a priori misconceptions in the main population. The purpose of this study is to compare the knowledge about cancer RCTs in enrolled participants (cases) versus patients treated under cancer standard care who have never taken part in RCTs (controls). Methods We submitted a validated questionnaire (ICEC-R) to both populations to explore their knowledge about RCTs. A total of 75 cases and 107 controls were included. Results Globally, the cases’ knowledge was significantly better, especially about (i) the randomization process, (ii) the uncertain potential benefits, and (iii) the right to withdraw consent. Both populations presented the lowest scores for items exploring the randomization process and uncertain treatment benefits. Conclusion Enrolled patients’ comprehension of the goals and means of RCTs is actually better than controls’. Nevertheless, additional efforts should be made to enhance information about clinical research to patients as well as to the main population. Practice Implications Having better knowledge about patients’ difficulties in understanding RCTs would allow physicians to adjust the information they give and then to enhance patients’ well-being.

Keywords

Cancer Factual understanding Information Informed consent process Randomized clinical trial 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Conducting this study was made possible thanks to the help of the National Agency for Research and Technology, the Oscar Lambret Centre and the University of Lille 3. The authors wish to thank the patients who participated in this project as well as Laetitia Van Hecke, Emmanuelle Fournier, the staff of the Integrated Unity for Clinical Research of the Oscar Lambret Centre and the staff of the Service of Pneumology and Thoracic Oncology of the Calmette Hospital (University Regional Hospital Centre of Lille) for their invaluable help in assessing patients.

References

  1. 1.
    Emmanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C (2000) What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 283:2701–2711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K, March V (1980) Informed consent. Why are its goals imperfectly realized? N Engl J Med 302:896–900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Featherstone K, Donovan JL (1998) Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients’ perspectives of participation in a randomized controlled trial. BMJ 317:1177–1180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lynöe N, Sandlund M, Dahlquist G, Jacobsson L (1991) Informed Consent: study of quality of information given to participants in a clinical trial. BMJ 303:610–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller CK, O’Donnell DC, Searight HR, Barbarash RA (1996) The deaconess informed consent comprehension test: an assessment tool for clinical research subjects. Pharmacotherapy 16:872–878PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schaeffer MH, Krantz DS, Wichman A, Masur H, Reed E, Vinicky JK (1996) The impact of disease severity on the informed consent process in clinical research. Am J Med 100:261–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams MV, Parker RM, Baker DW, Parikh NS, Pitkin K, Coates WC, Nurss JR (1995) Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals. JAMA 274:1677–1682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bergler JH, Pennington AC, Metcalfe M, Freis ED (1980) Informed consent: how much does the patient understand? Clin Pharm Ther 27:435–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franck L, Winter I (2004) Research participant information sheets are difficult to read. Bull Med Ethics 195:13–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grossman SA, Piantadosi S, Covahey C (1994) Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families? J Clin Oncol 12:2211–2215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krupka E, Gendre D, Lafay C, Le Dez O, Gelineau P, Perault-Pochat MC (2005) Perception of written and oral information by 50 healthy volunteers from a monocentric study. Therapie 60:31–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paris A, Cracowski JL, Ravanel N, Cornu C, Gueyffier E, Deygas B, Guillot K, Bosson JL, Hommel M (2005) Lisibilité de l’information écrite destinée aux sujets se prêtant à une recherche biomédicale. Press Med 34:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sharp SM (2004) Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things? Am J Clin Oncol 27:570–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leroy T, Christophe V, Penel N, Antoine P, Vanlemmens L, Reich M, Clisant S (2009) Index de compréhension des essais cliniques randomisés en oncologie. Bull Cancer 96:741–750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC (2001) Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet 358:1742–1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kodish E, Eder H, Noll RB, Ruccione K, Lange B, Angiolillo A, Pentz R, Zyzanski S, Siminoff LA, Drotar D (2004) Communication of randomization in childhood leukemia trials. JAMA 291:470–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W (1987) False hopes and best data: consent to research and therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep 17:20–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greenley RN, Drotar D, Zyzanski SJ, Kodish E (2006) Stability of parental understanding of random assignment in childhood leukemia trials: an empirical examination of informed consent. J Clin Oncol 24:891–897PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tanguy Leroy
    • 1
  • Véronique Christophe
    • 1
  • Nicolas Penel
    • 2
  • Pascal Antoine
    • 1
  • Stéphanie Clisant
    • 2
  1. 1.URECA EA 1059—Staff “Family, Health & Emotion”Univ Lille Nord de France—Université de Lille 3Villeneuve d’Ascq CedexFrance
  2. 2.Integrated Unity for Clinical ResearchCentre Oscar LambretLille CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations