Impact of a cancer clinical trials web site on discussions about trial participation: a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND Cancer patients want access to reliable information about currently recruiting clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS Oncologists and their patients were randomly assigned to access a consumer-friendly cancer clinical trials web site [Australian Cancer Trials (ACT), www.australiancancertrials.gov.au] or to usual care in a cluster randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome, measured from audio recordings of oncologist-patient consultations, was the proportion of patients with whom participation in any clinical trial was discussed. Analysis was by intention-to-treat accounting for clustering and stratification. RESULTS Thirty medical oncologists and 493 patients were recruited. Overall, 46% of consultations in the intervention group compared with 34% in the control group contained a discussion about clinical trials (P=0.08). The mean consultation length in both groups was 29 min (P=0.69). The proportion consenting to a trial was 10% in both groups (P=0.65). Patients' knowledge about randomized trials was lower in the intervention than the control group (mean score 3.0 versus 3.3, P=0.03) but decisional conflict scores were similar (mean score 42 versus 43, P=0.83). CONCLUSIONS Good communication between patients and physicians is essential. Within this context, a web site such as Australian Cancer Trials may be an important tool to encourage discussion about clinical trial participation.

[1]  D. Fayter,et al.  Increasing participation of cancer patients in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review , 2006, Trials.

[2]  F. Bidard,et al.  Internet to boost patient accrual in oncology trials? A multiinstitutional AERIO study. , 2011, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[3]  L. Siu,et al.  Impact of the media and the internet on oncology: survey of cancer patients and oncologists in Canada. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  Paul R Helft Breast cancer in the information age: a review of recent developments. , 2004, Breast disease.

[5]  Kumanan Wilson,et al.  Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors. , 2006, The Lancet. Oncology.

[6]  U. Jayaram Increasing participation of women in the engineering curriculum , 1997, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference. Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change.

[7]  M. Stockler,et al.  The take-home message: doctors' views on letters and tapes after a cancer consultation. , 1993, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[8]  P. Butow,et al.  Randomized clinical trials in oncology: understanding and attitudes predict willingness to participate. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  Out of necessity: oncology nurses' experiences integrating the internet into practice. , 2005, Oncology nursing forum.

[10]  P. Butow,et al.  Consumer input into research: the Australian Cancer Trials website , 2011, Health research policy and systems.

[11]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[12]  S. George,et al.  Managing accrual in cooperative group clinical trials. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  M. Baum,et al.  New approach for recruitment into randomised controlled trials , 1993, The Lancet.

[14]  Malorye Allison,et al.  Can web 2.0 reboot clinical trials? , 2009, Nature Biotechnology.

[15]  P. Butow,et al.  Cancer consultation preparation package: changing patients but not physicians is not enough. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  P. Buettner,et al.  Attitudes, knowledge and barriers to participation in cancer clinical trials among rural and remote patients , 2011, Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology.

[17]  C. Simon,et al.  Patient internet use surrounding cancer clinical trials: clinician perceptions and responses. , 2010, Contemporary clinical trials.

[18]  Frank Sullivan,et al.  Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. , 2010, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[19]  J. Sloan,et al.  Decision making during serious illness: what role do patients really want to play? , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  M. Deering,et al.  User-Centered Research on Breast Cancer Patient Needs and Preferences of an Internet-Based Clinical Trial Matching System , 2007, Journal of medical Internet research.

[21]  A. Barratt,et al.  Adding value to clinical trial registries: insights from Australian Cancer Trials Online, a website for consumers , 2011, Clinical trials.

[22]  C. Daugherty,et al.  American oncologists' views of internet use by cancer patients: a mail survey of American Society of Clinical Oncology members. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  Feng Gao,et al.  A survey of Internet utilization among patients with cancer , 2011, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[24]  T. Fehm,et al.  The Brustkrebs-Studien.de website for breast cancer patients: User acceptance of a German internet portal offering information on the disease and treatment options, and a clinical trials matching service , 2010, BMC Cancer.

[25]  N. Weiss Generalizability of cancer clinical trial results , 2007, Cancer.