Seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials:: describing current practice
AbstractClinical trials have come to be regarded as the gold standard for treatment evaluation. However, many doctors and their patients experience difficulties when discussing trials, leading to poor accrual to trials and questionable quality of informed consent. We have previously developed a typology for ethical communication about Phase II and III clinical trials within four domains: (a) shared decision making, (b) sequencing information, (c) type and clarity of information, and (d) disclosure/coercion. The aim of this study was to compare current clinical practice when seeking informed consent with this typology. Fifty-nine consultations in which 10 participating oncologists sought informed consent were audiotaped. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using a coding system to (a) identify the presence or absence of aspects of the four domains and (b) rate the quality of aspects of two domains: (i) shared decision-making and (ii) type and clarity of information. Oncologists rarely addressed aspects of shared decision-making, other than offering to delay a treatment decision (78%). Moreover, many of these discussions scored poorly with respect to ideal content. The oncologists were rarely consistent with the sequence of information provision. A general rationale for randomising was only described in 46% of consultations. In almost one third of the consultations (28.8%) doctors made implicit statements favouring one option over another, either standard or clinical trial treatment. Doctors complied with some but not other aspects of a standard procedure for discussing clinical trials. This reflects the difficulty inherent in seeking ethical informed consent and the need for communication skills training for oncologists.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.
Volume (Year): 58 (2004)
Issue (Month): 12 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wendy Shamier).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.