Improving Informed Consent for Early Phase Anti-Cancer Trials
NCT ID: NCT04407676
Last Updated: 2022-03-04
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
UNKNOWN
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
34 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2020-06-26
Study Completion Date
2023-03-26
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The purpose of the trial will be to test whether providing both a short summary PIS and a link to a set of online video modules will improve patient understanding (those considering early phase clinical trials) as measured on the Quality of Informed Consent questionnaire (Part A), as compared to a control group who are provided only the normal PIS, and also to assess user acceptability and feasibility of these interventions.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Can Electronic Information Kiosks Enhance Patient Accrual for Cancer Clinical Trials? A Pilot and Feasibility Study
NCT03747276
Malignant Neoplasm
COMPLETED
NA
The Goals of Care Initiative
NCT04020679
Decision-Making Oncology
Chemotherapy Effect
TERMINATED
NA
Printed Education Materials in Patients Who Are Finishing Treatment for Stage I, Stage II, or Stage IIIA Breast Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, Prostate Cancer, or Chest Cancer
NCT00372840
Breast Cancer
Colorectal Cancer
Lung Cancer
+4 more
COMPLETED
NA
Facts and Attitudes About Clinical Trials
NCT01269645
Cancer
Neoplasm
COMPLETED
NA
Collection of Patient-Reported Symptoms and Performance Status Via the Internet
NCT00417040
Prostate Cancer
Breast Cancer
Lung Cancer
+3 more
COMPLETED
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
i. General background
Early phase oncology clinical trials are becoming increasingly complex with a rapidly increasing array of investigational agents, combinations of these agents and a variety of trial designs which incorporate the importance of personalised approaches and the hope of fast tracked drug discovery. Informed consent for early phase oncology trials has always been a contentious area, and now it continues to be of relevance for the wider oncology community and the Phase 1 trial community. A 2018 study demonstrated significant gaps in understanding of patients regarding the nature and intent of early phase oncology trials. There has been a longstanding debate in the medical oncology community about the nature of Phase 1 trials and the ethics of allowing vulnerable patients to participate in clinical research where the primary purpose is to establish the safe dose. Opponents of the argument point to the need to understand both sides and that patients need to understand enough to consent, which is not necessarily full comprehension. The fact that this group of patients is hopeful, optimistic and desperate has been well characterized and no doubt plays a role in their ability to process information presented to them by the clinical research team.
ii. Empirical research showing patients misunderstand early phase clinical trials
Multiple studies have shown that advanced cancer patients (ACP) misunderstand the nature and purpose of Phase 1 oncology trials. Most recently, Hlubocky et al. demonstrated through audiotaping clinical encounters between 101 ACPs, and 29 oncologists that ACPs had a poor understanding. Only 26% were able to recall the primary purpose of the trial as safety and only 7% were able to recall that there was a risk of major adverse effects such as organ damage. The study also demonstrated deficiencies in clinician communication, with only 40% of encounters containing a direct statement on the research purpose being to establish safety, toxicity and dosage. In 2010, a similar study of 17 oncologists and 52 patients in the United Kingdom showed that several key areas of information including prognosis were omitted from the clinical encounter.Joffe and colleagues also conducted a survey of trial participants (including phase 1, 2 and 3 clinical trials) and investigators and showed significant deficits in understanding. Furthermore, in a survey of 95 patients on Phase 1 trials, Pentz and colleagues demonstrated that 68.4% of patients had a therapeutic misconception by failing to answer two core questions correctly ("Is the research study mostly intending to help research and gain knowledge or mostly intending to help you as a person?" and "Does the research study or your doctor decide the treatments?"). There was also a misunderstanding of the risk associated with participating in an early phase clinical trial and that they do not correctly grasp the key difference between individualized care and clinical research. There was a correlation between lower education and lower family incomes with therapeutic misconception. Overall there is extensive empirical evidence to suggest that a significant proportion of advanced cancer patients considering early phase oncology clinical trials harbour misconceptions about the nature and design of these trials.
iii. Participant Information Sheets are too long, too complex and fail to meet the information needs of patients
It has long been recognised that Participant Information Sheets (PIS) or Informed Consent Forms (ICF) are highly complex and lengthy across all the phases of oncology clinical trials. In 2007, Beardsley and colleagues showed that PIS were increasing in length and that an objective measure of informed consent (the QuIC-A), understanding decreased as PIS's increased in length. There have been no published studies on the PIS used in Phase 1 studies specifically. However, in the era of combination trials, Bayesian adaptive design, and seamless Phase 1/2 designs, the PIS for Phase 1 trials can be particularly complex. There is regulatory requirement for disclosure and there are certain regulatory requirements but these documents have ultimately become unwieldy, disliked by investigators and anecdotally, not read at all by participants. This further magnifies the issues on therapeutic misconception that were highlighted earlier. We note that the Hastings Center has published a 3 page Phase 1 consent form, but to the best of our knowledge this is not in widespread practice. Overall, in this era of increasingly sophisticated trial design, PIS are becoming lengthier and are becoming less useful as adjuncts to the informed consent process.
iv. Paucity of interventional research to improve understanding
We performed a review of the literature looking at interventions that have been tested to improve participant comprehension of Phase 1 trials which yielded two relevant studies. The first, a simulated teaching intervention to improve clinician confidence by Fallowfield et al. (2012) showed that an intensive 8 hour educational intervention on clinicians involved in early phase trials improved their self-confidence along with patient simulator ratings of understanding(7). Secondly, Kass et al. (2009) randomized 288 participants to receive either a 20 minute educational computer based presentation or a standard pamphlet on clinical trials and showed that they could improve patient understanding of trial purpose from 16% to 34%(8) and also showed that there was no significant differences in likelihood of enrollment. We note that there have been multiple efforts directed towards empowering cancer patients in later phase trials including audiovisual techniques such as multimedia presentations(9), question prompt lists(10), and decision aids (11). Promisingly, sponsors are already taking steps towards improving their information sheets and there are already attempts to incorporate audiovisual materials and electronic assessment of patient understanding.
v. Justification for CONSENT
CONSENT will be a randomised controlled trial examining the effect of both a short, jargon-free, plain language participant information sheet and a suite of online educational videos, on participants considering consenting to an investigator initiated trial within the Drug Development Unit. Early phase trials have dramatically changed over the last decade and there have been no interventional studies published in this area in this time and consequently this is a significant area of unmet need for both patients and investigators. This trial will use a validated measure of informed consent (Quality of Informed Consent - Part A) and powered to test a statistical hypothesis, and will also examine the acceptability of the two interventions for patients. While the trial will employ a randomised design, it will ensure all participants are provided access to the enhanced consent materials prior to their actual consent visit to ensure fairness. This trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, standard operating procedures, policies, local R\&D management guidance, Good Clinical Practice including the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care.
Research Governance Framework 2005 (2nd edition)
2\. Rationale
Given the ethical imperative to ensure patients understand the nature and conduct of clinical trials, the clearly documented lack of understanding in the literature, we propose this trial to examine whether a pragmatic and deliverable program of "enhanced" informed consent can impact upon patient objective and subjective understanding. The first part of this enhanced consent will be a summary PIS (example attached in appendix) which contains the absolutely necessary information for patients - we have already conducted a qualitative study of patient focus groups and have asked patients directly their priorities. The top three priorities identified patients were
1. Will this trial work for me?
2. What are the side effects?
3. How often do I have to come? This will consist of an easy to understand flowchart.
The second part of this enhanced consent will be an online link to 10 video modules (transcripts attached in appendix) covering key areas of the consent. During the development process of these educational tools, we performed a qualitative analysis of transcripts of interviews of consultants, study managers, clinical fellows, clinical research nurses and patients of the DDU and identified the key areas that the various stakeholders wished to communicate to patients. We asked about the key areas that need to be communicated, common areas of misunderstanding and preferred ways forward of improving patient understanding.
Early phase oncology clinical trials are becoming increasingly complex with a rapidly increasing array of investigational agents, combinations of these agents and a variety of trial designs which incorporate the importance of personalised approaches and the hope of fast tracked drug discovery. Informed consent for early phase oncology trials has always been a contentious area, and now it continues to be of relevance for the wider oncology community and the Phase 1 trial community. A 2018 study demonstrated significant gaps in understanding of patients regarding the nature and intent of early phase oncology trials. There has been a longstanding debate in the medical oncology community about the nature of Phase 1 trials and the ethics of allowing vulnerable patients to participate in clinical research where the primary purpose is to establish the safe dose. Opponents of the argument point to the need to understand both sides and that patients need to understand enough to consent, which is not necessarily full comprehension. The fact that this group of patients is hopeful, optimistic and desperate has been well characterized and no doubt plays a role in their ability to process information presented to them by the clinical research team.
ii. Empirical research showing patients misunderstand early phase clinical trials
Multiple studies have shown that advanced cancer patients (ACP) misunderstand the nature and purpose of Phase 1 oncology trials. Most recently, Hlubocky et al. demonstrated through audiotaping clinical encounters between 101 ACPs, and 29 oncologists that ACPs had a poor understanding. Only 26% were able to recall the primary purpose of the trial as safety and only 7% were able to recall that there was a risk of major adverse effects such as organ damage. The study also demonstrated deficiencies in clinician communication, with only 40% of encounters containing a direct statement on the research purpose being to establish safety, toxicity and dosage. In 2010, a similar study of 17 oncologists and 52 patients in the United Kingdom showed that several key areas of information including prognosis were omitted from the clinical encounter.Joffe and colleagues also conducted a survey of trial participants (including phase 1, 2 and 3 clinical trials) and investigators and showed significant deficits in understanding. Furthermore, in a survey of 95 patients on Phase 1 trials, Pentz and colleagues demonstrated that 68.4% of patients had a therapeutic misconception by failing to answer two core questions correctly ("Is the research study mostly intending to help research and gain knowledge or mostly intending to help you as a person?" and "Does the research study or your doctor decide the treatments?"). There was also a misunderstanding of the risk associated with participating in an early phase clinical trial and that they do not correctly grasp the key difference between individualized care and clinical research. There was a correlation between lower education and lower family incomes with therapeutic misconception. Overall there is extensive empirical evidence to suggest that a significant proportion of advanced cancer patients considering early phase oncology clinical trials harbour misconceptions about the nature and design of these trials.
iii. Participant Information Sheets are too long, too complex and fail to meet the information needs of patients
It has long been recognised that Participant Information Sheets (PIS) or Informed Consent Forms (ICF) are highly complex and lengthy across all the phases of oncology clinical trials. In 2007, Beardsley and colleagues showed that PIS were increasing in length and that an objective measure of informed consent (the QuIC-A), understanding decreased as PIS's increased in length. There have been no published studies on the PIS used in Phase 1 studies specifically. However, in the era of combination trials, Bayesian adaptive design, and seamless Phase 1/2 designs, the PIS for Phase 1 trials can be particularly complex. There is regulatory requirement for disclosure and there are certain regulatory requirements but these documents have ultimately become unwieldy, disliked by investigators and anecdotally, not read at all by participants. This further magnifies the issues on therapeutic misconception that were highlighted earlier. We note that the Hastings Center has published a 3 page Phase 1 consent form, but to the best of our knowledge this is not in widespread practice. Overall, in this era of increasingly sophisticated trial design, PIS are becoming lengthier and are becoming less useful as adjuncts to the informed consent process.
iv. Paucity of interventional research to improve understanding
We performed a review of the literature looking at interventions that have been tested to improve participant comprehension of Phase 1 trials which yielded two relevant studies. The first, a simulated teaching intervention to improve clinician confidence by Fallowfield et al. (2012) showed that an intensive 8 hour educational intervention on clinicians involved in early phase trials improved their self-confidence along with patient simulator ratings of understanding(7). Secondly, Kass et al. (2009) randomized 288 participants to receive either a 20 minute educational computer based presentation or a standard pamphlet on clinical trials and showed that they could improve patient understanding of trial purpose from 16% to 34%(8) and also showed that there was no significant differences in likelihood of enrollment. We note that there have been multiple efforts directed towards empowering cancer patients in later phase trials including audiovisual techniques such as multimedia presentations(9), question prompt lists(10), and decision aids (11). Promisingly, sponsors are already taking steps towards improving their information sheets and there are already attempts to incorporate audiovisual materials and electronic assessment of patient understanding.
v. Justification for CONSENT
CONSENT will be a randomised controlled trial examining the effect of both a short, jargon-free, plain language participant information sheet and a suite of online educational videos, on participants considering consenting to an investigator initiated trial within the Drug Development Unit. Early phase trials have dramatically changed over the last decade and there have been no interventional studies published in this area in this time and consequently this is a significant area of unmet need for both patients and investigators. This trial will use a validated measure of informed consent (Quality of Informed Consent - Part A) and powered to test a statistical hypothesis, and will also examine the acceptability of the two interventions for patients. While the trial will employ a randomised design, it will ensure all participants are provided access to the enhanced consent materials prior to their actual consent visit to ensure fairness. This trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, standard operating procedures, policies, local R\&D management guidance, Good Clinical Practice including the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care.
Research Governance Framework 2005 (2nd edition)
2\. Rationale
Given the ethical imperative to ensure patients understand the nature and conduct of clinical trials, the clearly documented lack of understanding in the literature, we propose this trial to examine whether a pragmatic and deliverable program of "enhanced" informed consent can impact upon patient objective and subjective understanding. The first part of this enhanced consent will be a summary PIS (example attached in appendix) which contains the absolutely necessary information for patients - we have already conducted a qualitative study of patient focus groups and have asked patients directly their priorities. The top three priorities identified patients were
1. Will this trial work for me?
2. What are the side effects?
3. How often do I have to come? This will consist of an easy to understand flowchart.
The second part of this enhanced consent will be an online link to 10 video modules (transcripts attached in appendix) covering key areas of the consent. During the development process of these educational tools, we performed a qualitative analysis of transcripts of interviews of consultants, study managers, clinical fellows, clinical research nurses and patients of the DDU and identified the key areas that the various stakeholders wished to communicate to patients. We asked about the key areas that need to be communicated, common areas of misunderstanding and preferred ways forward of improving patient understanding.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Solid Neoplasms
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
CROSSOVER
Randomised
Primary Study Purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Blinding Strategy
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Experimental
Patients eligible for an investigator initiated trial are given the standard PIS by email, and are also emailed a summary PIS and access to an online set of 10 video educational modules. They are then administered a demographic data collection form, the Quality of Informed Consent Questionnaire Parts A and B, and a user feedback survey form. They then present for their standard of care consent visit.
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
Summary PIS and Online Video Modules
Intervention Type
OTHER
Complex trial information presented in alternative and more accessible formats
Control
Patients eligible for an investigator initiated trial are given the standard PIS by email and are then administered a demographic data collection form, the Quality of Informed Consent Questionnaire Parts A and B, and a user feedback survey form. They will then be emailed and are also emailed a summary PIS and access to an online set of 10 video educational modules. They will then perform the QuIC-A and QuIC-B again. They will then present for their standard of care consent visit.
Group Type
PLACEBO_COMPARATOR
Summary PIS and Online Video Modules
Intervention Type
OTHER
Complex trial information presented in alternative and more accessible formats
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Summary PIS and Online Video Modules
Complex trial information presented in alternative and more accessible formats
Intervention Type
OTHER
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
1. For randomised participation, patients must be eligible for an Investigator Initiated Trial (IIT) within the Drug Development Unit
1. RAFMEK (IRAS 102403, CCR 3808, REC ref: 12/LO/1407)
2. FRAME (IRAS 225064, CCR 4642, REC ref: 17/LO/1473)
3. ICE-CAP (IRAS 233461, CCR 4720, REC ref: 18/LO/0059), non GBM cohorts
4. ACE (IRAS Number 211557, CCR 4500, REC ref: 17/LO/0263)
5. Other IIT trials as they open, however these trials and accompanying study aids will be added as an amendment to CONSENT
For participation in non-randomised secondary analysis of GBM patients, patients must be eligible for
a. ICE-CAP (IRAS 233461, CCR 4720, REC ref: 18/LO/0059), GBM cohorts
2. English is the patient's primary language
3. Written (signed and dated) informed consent and be capable of co-operating with study procedures and questionnaire
1. RAFMEK (IRAS 102403, CCR 3808, REC ref: 12/LO/1407)
2. FRAME (IRAS 225064, CCR 4642, REC ref: 17/LO/1473)
3. ICE-CAP (IRAS 233461, CCR 4720, REC ref: 18/LO/0059), non GBM cohorts
4. ACE (IRAS Number 211557, CCR 4500, REC ref: 17/LO/0263)
5. Other IIT trials as they open, however these trials and accompanying study aids will be added as an amendment to CONSENT
For participation in non-randomised secondary analysis of GBM patients, patients must be eligible for
a. ICE-CAP (IRAS 233461, CCR 4720, REC ref: 18/LO/0059), GBM cohorts
2. English is the patient's primary language
3. Written (signed and dated) informed consent and be capable of co-operating with study procedures and questionnaire
Exclusion Criteria
1. Pre-existing visual, non-cancer related cognitive impairment, or reading impairment
2. Patients who have already consented to a trial or have prior consent knowledge
2. Patients who have already consented to a trial or have prior consent knowledge
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Juanita Lopez, MRCP PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
London, , United Kingdom
Site Status
RECRUITING
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
United Kingdom
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Hlubocky FJ, Kass NE, Roter D, Larson S, Wroblewski KE, Sugarman J, Daugherty CK. Investigator Disclosure and Advanced Cancer Patient Understanding of Informed Consent and Prognosis in Phase I Clinical Trials. J Oncol Pract. 2018 Jun;14(6):e357-e367. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00028. Epub 2018 May 22.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Miller FG, Joffe S. Phase 1 oncology trials and informed consent. J Med Ethics. 2013 Dec;39(12):761-4. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100832. Epub 2012 Nov 17.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Dolly SO, Kalaitzaki E, Puglisi M, Stimpson S, Hanwell J, Fandos SS, Stapleton S, Ansari T, Peckitt C, Kaye S, Lopez J, Yap TA, van der Graaf W, de Bono J, Banerji U. A study of motivations and expectations of patients seen in phase 1 oncology clinics. Cancer. 2016 Nov 15;122(22):3501-3508. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30235. Epub 2016 Sep 26.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Jenkins V, Solis-Trapala I, Langridge C, Catt S, Talbot DC, Fallowfield LJ. What oncologists believe they said and what patients believe they heard: an analysis of phase I trial discussions. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jan 1;29(1):61-8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.0814. Epub 2010 Nov 22.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2001 Nov 24;358(9295):1772-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06805-2.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Koyfman SA, McCabe MS, Emanuel EJ, Grady C. A consent form template for phase I oncology trials. IRB. 2009 Jul-Aug;31(4):1-8. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Fallowfield LJ, Solis-Trapala I, Jenkins VA. Evaluation of an educational program to improve communication with patients about early-phase trial participation. Oncologist. 2012;17(3):377-83. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0271. Epub 2012 Mar 1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kass NE, Sugarman J, Medley AM, Fogarty LA, Taylor HA, Daugherty CK, Emerson MR, Goodman SN, Hlubocky FJ, Hurwitz HI, Carducci M, Goodwin-Landher A. An intervention to improve cancer patients' understanding of early-phase clinical trials. IRB. 2009 May-Jun;31(3):1-10. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Synnot A, Ryan R, Prictor M, Fetherstonhaugh D, Parker B. Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 May 9;2014(5):CD003717. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003717.pub3.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Tattersall MH, Jefford M, Martin A, Olver I, Thompson JF, Brown RF, Butow PN. Parallel multicentre randomised trial of a clinical trial question prompt list in patients considering participation in phase 3 cancer treatment trials. BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 1;7(3):e012666. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012666.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Juraskova I, Butow P, Bonner C, Bell ML, Smith AB, Seccombe M, Boyle F, Reaby L, Cuzick J, Forbes JF. Improving decision making about clinical trial participation - a randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for women considering participation in the IBIS-II breast cancer prevention trial. Br J Cancer. 2014 Jul 8;111(1):1-7. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.144. Epub 2014 Jun 3.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001 Jan 17;93(2):139-47. doi: 10.1093/jnci/93.2.139.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Hoffner B, Bauer-Wu S, Hitchcock-Bryan S, Powell M, Wolanski A, Joffe S. "Entering a Clinical Trial: Is it Right for You?": a randomized study of The Clinical Trials Video and its impact on the informed consent process. Cancer. 2012 Apr 1;118(7):1877-83. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26438. Epub 2011 Aug 25.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Spellecy R, Tarima S, Denzen E, Moore H, Abhyankar S, Dawson P, Foley A, Gersten I, Horwitz M, Idossa L, Joffe S, Kamani N, King R, Lazaryan A, Morris L, Horowitz MM, Majhail NS. Easy-to-Read Informed Consent Form for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Clinical Trials: Results from the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network 1205 Study. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 Oct;24(10):2145-2151. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.04.014. Epub 2018 Apr 18.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Pal A, Stapleton S, Yap C, Lai-Kwon J, Daly R, Magkos D, Baikady BR, Minchom A, Banerji U, De Bono J, Karikios D, Boyle F, Lopez J. Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of enhanced informed consent compared to standard informed consent to improve patient understanding of early phase oncology clinical trials (CONSENT). BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 6;11(9):e049217. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049217.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
CCR 5165
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Increasing Knowledge and Interest in Cancer Clinical Trials
NCT06501040
RECRUITING
NA
Clinical Trial Navigation to Increase Participation and Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials
NCT06484595
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Evaluating the Use of Educational Videos in Newly Diagnosed Patients in a Medical Oncology Sarcoma Clinic
NCT06805773
RECRUITING
NA
Seeking Informed Consent to Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials: Identifying Oncologists'Communication Styles
NCT00582192
COMPLETED
Multimedia Psychoeducation or Print Education in Preparing Cancer Patients for Decision Making About Clinical Trials
NCT02054715
COMPLETED
NA
Improving Quality of Life for Colon Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers
NCT04713007
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Videos for Advance Care Planning in Young Adults
NCT04149704
COMPLETED
NA
Advance Care Planning: Promoting Effective and Aligned Communication in the Elderly
NCT03609177
COMPLETED
NA
Personalized Information or Basic Information in Helping Patients Make Decisions About Participating in a Clinical Trial
NCT00750009
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Intervention to Increase Chemotherapy Tolerance in Elderly Cancer Patients
NCT01586416
UNKNOWN
NA
Evaluation of a Mobile App to Promote Social Support for Oncology Patients
NCT04331678
COMPLETED
NA
Improving Quality of Life Through the Routine Use of the Patient Concerns Inventory for Head and Neck Cancer Patients
NCT03086629
COMPLETED
NA
Do Patients Participating In Oncology Clinical Trials Understand the Informed Consent Form?
NCT01772511
COMPLETED
Tailoring Patient Education to Perceived Risk for Falls in Hospitalized Oncology Patients
NCT02081794
COMPLETED
NA
Evaluating Patient Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials
NCT00043030
COMPLETED
NA
Computer Program in Improving Communication Between Doctors and Patients With Stage IV Cancer
NCT00276627
COMPLETED
NA
Assessing Older Patients With Cancer
NCT00416481
COMPLETED
Observational Study of Pain Reduction in Late-Stage Cancer Patients Who Are Receiving Low-Dose Chemotherapy
NCT02443675
UNKNOWN
Online Psychosocial Intervention in Improving Social Well-Being and Support in Women With Stage I-IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Undergoing Treatment
NCT03731585
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Combination Therapy for Cancer Related Fatigue in Patients With Metastatic Cancers
NCT06085716
RECRUITING
PHASE2/PHASE3
Using Whole-Person-Care Guide in Patients Receiving Care for Cancer or Complications From Cancer Treatment
NCT00608738
COMPLETED
NA
Multimedia Educational Program for Patients With Early-Stage Prostate Cancer or Breast Cancer
NCT00830635
COMPLETED
NA
Evaluating Disparities in Precision Oncology
NCT06081517
RECRUITING
Mobile Application for Improving Symptoms and Adherence to Oral Chemotherapy in Patients With Cancer
NCT02157519
COMPLETED
NA
Increasing Patients' Engagement in Breast Cancer Surgery Decision-Making
NCT03766009
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA