African-American patients with cancer Talking About Clinical Trials (TACT) with oncologists during consultations: evaluating the efficacy of tailored health messages in a randomised controlled trial-the TACT study protocol

R F Brown, R Davis, M Wilson Genderson, S Grant, D Cadet, M Lessard, J Alpert, J Ward, G Ginder, R F Brown, R Davis, M Wilson Genderson, S Grant, D Cadet, M Lessard, J Alpert, J Ward, G Ginder

Abstract

Introduction: Low rates of accrual of African-American (AA) patients with cancer to therapeutic clinical trials (CTs) represent a serious and modifiable racial disparity in healthcare that impedes the development of promising cancer therapies. Suboptimal physician-patient consultation communication is a barrier to the accrual of patients with cancer of any race, but communication difficulties are compounded with AA patients. Providing tailored health messages (THM) to AA patients and their physician about CTs has the potential to improve communication, lower barriers to accrual and ameliorate health disparities.

Objective: (1) Demonstrate the efficacy of THM to increase patient activation as measured by direct observation. (2) Demonstrate the efficacy of THM to improve patient outcomes associated with barriers to AA participation. (3) Explore associations among preconsultation levels of: (A) trust in medical researchers, (B) knowledge and attitudes towards CTs, (C) patient-family member congruence in decision-making, and (D) involvement/information preferences, and group assignment.

Methods and analysis: First, using established methods, we will develop THM materials. Second, the efficacy of the intervention is determined in a 2 by 2 factorial randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of (1) providing 357 AA patients with cancer with THM with 2 different 'depths' of tailoring and (2) either providing feedback to oncologists about the patients' trial THM or not. The primary analysis compares patient engaged communication in 4 groups preconsultation and postconsultation.

Ethics and dissemination: This study was approved by the Virginia Commonwealth University Institutional Review Board. To facilitate use of the THM intervention in diverse settings, we will convene 'user groups' at 3 major US cancer centres. To facilitate dissemination, we will post all materials and the implementation guide in publicly available locations.

Trial registration number: NCT02356549.

Keywords: Health Disparities; Physician - Patient Communication; Randomized Controlled Trial; Tailored Health Messages.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consort diagram. EMR, electronic medical records.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A 2×2 Factorial design. EMR, electronic medical records.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Decision rule example. Q5 trust in physicians.

References

    1. Adams-Campbell LL, Ahaghotu C, Gaskins M et al. . Enrolment of African Americans onto clinical treatment trials: study design barriers. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:730–4 10.1200/JCO.2004.03.160
    1. Avis NE, Smith KW, Link CI et al. . Factors associated with participation in breast cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1860–7.
    1. Ellis P, Butow PN, Tattersall MHN et al. . Randomised clinical trials in oncology: understanding and attitudes predict patients willingness to participate. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3554–61.
    1. Lara PN, Higon N, Lim N et al. . Prospective evaluation of clinical trial accrual patterns: identifying potential barriers to enrolment. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1728– 33.
    1. Howerton MW, Gibbons MC, Baffi CR et al. . Provider roles in the recruitment of underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials. Cancer 2007;109:465–76. 10.1002/cncr.22436
    1. Tilburt J, Ford JG, Howerton MW et al. . Applying justice in clinical trials for diverse populations. Clin Trials 2007;4:264–9. 10.1177/1740774507079440
    1. Bartlett C, Doyal L, Ebrahim S et al. . The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:1–152.
    1. Britton A, McKee M, Black N et al. . Threats to the applicability of randomised trials, exclusions and selective participation. J Health Serv Res Policy 1999;4:112–21.
    1. Branson RD, DAvis KJ, Butler KL. African Americans participation in clinical research; importance, barriers and solutions. Am J Surg 2007;193:32–9.
    1. Swanson GM, Bailer JC. Selection and description of cancer clinical trials participants: science or happenstance. Cancer 2002;95:950–9. 10.1002/cncr.10785
    1. Ford JG, Howerton MW, Lai Gabriel Y et al. . Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations in cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Cancer 2007;112:228–42. 10.1002/cncr.23157
    1. Goss W, Lopez AM, Brown CL et al. . American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: disparities in cancer care. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2882–4. 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.1680
    1. Ellis P, Dowsett SM, Butow PN et al. . Attitudes to randomised clinical trials among outpatients attending a medical oncology clinic. Health Expect 1999;2:33–43. 10.1046/j.1369-6513.1999.00028.x
    1. Cunny KA, Miller HW. Participation in clinical drug studies: motivations and barriers. Clin Therapy 1994;16:273–82. discussion 271–2.
    1. Corbie Smith G, Thomas SB, St George DM. Distrust, race and research. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:2458–63. 10.1001/archinte.162.21.2458
    1. Fallowfield L. Can we improve the professional personal fulfilment of doctors in cancer medicine. Br J Cancer 1995;71:1132–3. 10.1038/bjc.1995.220
    1. Agrawal M, Grady C, Fairclough DL et al. . Patient decision making process regarding participation in phase I oncology research. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4479–83. 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.0269
    1. Albrecht TL, Penner LA, Cline RJW et al. . Studying the process of clinical communication: issues of context, concepts and research directions. J Health Comun 2009;14:47–56. 10.1080/10810730902806794
    1. Albrecht TL, Ruckdeschel JC, Riddle JC et al. . Communication and decision making about cancer clinical trials. Patient Educ Couns 2003;50:39–42. 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00078-8
    1. Brown RF, Butow PN, Ellis P et al. . Seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials: describing current practice. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:2445–57. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.09.007
    1. Brown RF, Bylund CL, Siminoff LA et al. . Seeking informed consent to phase I cancer clinical trial: Identifying oncologists’ communication strategies. Psychooncology 2010;20:361–8. 10.1002/pon.1748
    1. Fallowfield L, Jenkins V, Farewell V et al. . Efficacy of a Cancer research UK communication skills training model for oncologists: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;359:650–6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07810-8
    1. Stiles WD, Putnam SM, James S et al. . Dimensions of patient and physician roles in medical interviewing. Soc Sci Med 1979;13A:335–41.
    1. Beisecker AE, Beisecker TD. Patient information-seeking behaviors when communicating with doctors. Med Care 1990;28:19–28. 10.1097/00005650-199001000-00004
    1. Kindelan K, Kent G. Concordance between patients’ information preferences and general practitioners’ perceptions. Psychol Health 1987;1:399–409.
    1. Strull WM, Lo B, Charles G. Do patients want to participate in medical decision making? J Am Med Assoc 1984;252:2990–4.
    1. Breitsameter C. Medical decision-making and communication of risks: an ethical perspective. J Med Ethics 2010;36:349–52. 10.1136/jme.2009.033282
    1. Charles C, Gafni A. Shared treatment decision making and the use of decision aids. In: Kissane D, Bultz BD, Butow PN, Finlay IG, eds. Handbook of communication in oncology and palliative care. New York: Oxford, 2010:41–50.
    1. Siminoff LA. The ethics of communication in cancer and palliative care. In: Kissane D, Bultz BD, Butow PN, Finlay IG, eds. Handbook of communication in oncology and palliative care. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010: 51–61.
    1. Brown RF, Butow PN, Wilson-Genderson M et al. . Meeting breast cancer patients’ decision making preferences in oncology consultations: impact on decision related outcomes. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:857–62. 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.7952
    1. Gattellari M, Butow PN, Tattersall MH. Sharing decisions in cancer care. Soc Sci Med 2001;52:1865– 78. 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00303-8
    1. Johnson RL, Roter D, Powe NR et al. . Patient race/ethnicity and quality of patient-physician communication during medical visits. Am J Public Health 2004;94:2084–90. 10.2105/AJPH.94.12.2084
    1. Street RLJ, Gordon HS, Ward MM et al. . Patient participation in medical consultations: why some patients are more involved than others. Med Care 2005;43:960–9. 10.1097/01.mlr.0000178172.40344.70
    1. Gordon HS, Street RL Jr, Sharf BF et al. . Racial differences in trust and lung cancer patients’ perceptions of physician communication. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:904–9. 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.1955
    1. Fouad MN. Enrolment of minorities in clinical trials: Did we overcome the barriers? Contemp Clin Trials 2009;30:103–4. 10.1016/j.cct.2009.01.009
    1. Sparks L, Villagran M. Patient and provider interaction: a global health communication perspective. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2010.
    1. Kreuter MW, Farrell DW, Olevitch LR et al. . Tailoring health messages: Customizing communication with computer technology. UK: Routledge, 2013.
    1. Kreuter MW, Sugg-Skinner C, Holt CL et al. . Cultural tailoring for mammography and fruit and vegetable intake among low-income African-American women in urban public health centers. Prev Med 2005;41:53–62. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.10.013
    1. Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull 2007;133:673–93.
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF et al. . CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c869 10.1136/bmj.c869
    1. Kreuter MW. Toward more effective health communication: comparing the effects of tailored, personalized, and untailored messages in a randomized trial Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association 1997 IN, 1997.
    1. Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ, Harris R et al. . Are patients of women physicians screened more aggressively? A prospective study of physician gender and screening. J Gen Intern Med 1995;10:119–25. 10.1007/BF02599664
    1. Ellis PM, Butow PN, Tattersall MHN et al. . A randomised trial evaluating the impact of an education booklet on willingness to join randomised trials Clinical Oncological Society of Australia, Annual Scientific Conference 1999 Melbourne, 1999.
    1. Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med 2004;36:588–94.
    1. Hall MD, Camacho F, Lawlor JS et al. . Measuring trust in medical researchers. Med Care 2006;44:1048–53.
    1. Thom DH, Ribisl KM, Stewart AL et al. . Further validation and reliability testing of the trust in physician scale. The Stanford Trust Study Physicians. Med Care 1999;37:510–17.
    1. Maly RC, Frank JC, Marshall GN et al. . Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI): validation of an instrument in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1998;46:889–94. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb02725.x
    1. Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K et al. . Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Ann Intern Med 1980;92:832–6. 10.7326/0003-4819-92-6-832
    1. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC. Cancer patients’ decision making and trial entry preferences: the effects of “framing” information about short term toxicity and long term survival. Med Decis Making 1995;15:4–12. 10.1177/0272989X9501500103
    1. Center for Health Communications Research. Michigan Tailoring System. (cited 2012 2.10.12). .
    1. Penberthy L, Brown RF, Puma F et al. . Automated matching software for clinical trials eligibility; measuring efficiency and flexibility. Contemp Clin Trials 2010;31:207–17. 10.1016/j.cct.2010.03.005
    1. Penberthy L, Brown RF, Wilson-Genderson M et al. . Barriers to therapeutic clinical trials enrollment: differences between African-American and white cancer patients identified at the time of eligibility assessment. Clinical Trials 2012;9:788–97. 10.1177/1740774512458992
    1. Siminoff LA, Zyzanski SJ, Rose JH et al. . The cancer communication assessment tool for patients and families (CCAT-PF- A new Measure). Psychooncology 2008;17:1216–24. 10.1002/pon.1350
    1. Street RL, Millay B. Analyzing patient participation in medical encounters. Health Commun 2001;13:61–73. 10.1207/S15327027HC1301_06
    1. Street RL, Gordon HS. Companion participation in cancer consultations. Psychooncology 2008;17:244–591. 10.1002/pon.1225
    1. Cegala DJ, Chisolm DJ, Nwomeh BC. Further examination of the impact of patient participation on physicians’ communication style. Patient Educ Couns 2012;89:25–30. 10.1016/j.pec.2012.03.022
    1. Joffe S, Cook E, Francis V et al. . Quality of informed consent: a new measure if understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:139–47. 10.1093/jnci/93.2.139
    1. O'Connor A, O'Brien-Pallas LL. Decisional conflict. In: McFarland GK, McFarland EA, eds. Nursing diagnosis and interventions. Toronto, Canada: C V Mosby, 1989:573.
    1. Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N et al. . Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Med Decis Making 1994;16:58–64. 10.1177/0272989X9601600114
    1. Roter DL. Patient participation in the patient-provider interaction: the effects of patient question asking on the quality of interaction, satisfaction and compliance. Health Educ Monogr 1977;5:281–315. 10.1177/109019817700500402
    1. Brehaut Jamie JC, O'Connor Annette M, Wood TJ et al. . Validation of the Decision Regret Scale. Med Decis Making 2003;23:281–92. 10.1177/0272989X03256005

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren