Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/53775
Title: Challenges Conveying Clinical Equipoise and Exploring Patient Treatment Preferences in an Oncology Trial Comparing Active Monitoring with Radiotherapy (ROAM/EORTC 1308)
Contributor(s): Sherratt, Frances C (author); Brown, Stephen L  (author)orcid ; Haylock, Brian J (author); Francis, Priya (author); Hickey, Helen (author); Gamble, Carrol (author); Jenkinson, Michael D (author); Young, Bridget (author)
Publication Date: 2020-04
Early Online Version: 2020-02-11
Open Access: Yes
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0571
Handle Link: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/53775
Abstract: Introduction. Providing balanced information that emphasizes clinical equipoise (i.e., uncertainty regarding the relative merits of trial interventions) and exploring patient treatment prefer-ences can improve informed consent and trial recruitment. Within a trial comparing adjuvant radiotherapy versus active monitoring following surgical resection for an atypical meningi-oma (ROAM/EORTC-1308), we explored patterns in communica-tion and reasons why health practitioners may find it challenging to convey equipoise and explore treatment preferences.
Materials and Methods. Qualitative study embedded within ROAM/EORTC-1308. Data were collected on 40 patients and 18 practitioners from 13 U.K. sites, including audio recordings of 39 patients' trial consultations, 23 patient interviews, and 18 practitioner interviews. Qualitative analysis drew on argu-mentation theory.
Results. Practitioners acknowledged the importance of the research question that the trial aimed to answer. However, they often demonstrated a lack of equipoise in consultations, particularly with eligible patients who practitioners believed to be susceptible to side effects (e.g., cognitive impairment) or inconvenienced by radiotherapy. Practitioners elicited but rarely explored patient treatment preferences, especially if a patient expressed an initial preference for active monitoring. Concerns about coercing patients, loss of practitioner agency, and time constraints influenced communication in ways that were loaded against trial participation.
Conclusions. We identified several challenges that practi-tioners face in conveying equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences in oncology, and particularly neuro-oncology, trials with distinct management pathways. The find-ings informed communication about ROAM/EORTC-1308 and will be relevant to enhancing trial communication in future oncology trials. Qualitative studies embedded within trials can address difficulties with communication, thus improving informed consent and recruitment. ROAM/EORTC-1308 RCT: ISRCTN71502099. The Oncologist 2020;25:e691–e700
Publication Type: Journal Article
Source of Publication: The Oncologist, 25(4), p. e691-e700
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Place of Publication: United Kingdom
ISSN: 1549-490X
1083-7159
Fields of Research (FoR) 2020: 500101 Bioethics
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2020: 130301 Bioethics
Peer Reviewed: Yes
HERDC Category Description: C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
School of Psychology

Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
openpublished/ChallengesBrown2020JournalArticle.pdfPublished version957.23 kBAdobe PDF
Download Adobe
View/Open
Show full item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

20
checked on Jan 4, 2025

Page view(s)

306
checked on Mar 7, 2023

Download(s)

2
checked on Mar 7, 2023
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons