» Articles » PMID: 18449574

A Survey of the Views of Palliative Care Healthcare Professionals Towards Referring Cancer Patients to Participate in Randomized Controlled Trials in Palliative Care

Overview
Specialties Critical Care
Oncology
Date 2008 May 2
PMID 18449574
Citations 27
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Goals Of Work: Clinical trials in palliative care (PC), especially randomised controlled trials (RCTs), are notoriously difficult to complete. One perceived challenge is gatekeeping, the reluctance of some healthcare professionals (HCPs) to refer patients for research studies. This study aimed to identify the extent of gatekeeping from palliative RCTs.

Materials And Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to 597 HCPs with an interest in PC in Australia and New Zealand to assess their willingness to refer patients for RCTs. Respondents considered key issues that might affect their decision, documented willingness to refer to RCTs of increasing complexity in a hypothetical pain situation and documented the degree of patient inconvenience considered acceptable. Demographic data were collected.

Main Results: One hundred ninety-eight questionnaires were returned (33%), 122 from doctors and 76 from other HCPs. Very few were willing to refer to complicated studies involving many extra tests and/or hospital visits. Non-medical HCPs were less interested than doctors in studies that involved randomisation, placebo controls or double-blind methodology. The majority would refer patients for non-pharmacological studies, but were less willing to refer for pharmacological studies with possible side effects. Non-medical HCPs were less willing than doctors to refer to trials that involved patient inconvenience. Two factors predicted for greater willingness to refer: previous research experience and male gender.

Conclusion: The survey revealed an unwillingness on the part of many HCPs to refer patients for RCTs in PC. It identifies trial-related factors that may encourage or discourage referral. Gatekeeping has the potential block recruitment and introduce a selection bias.

Citing Articles

Evidence-based recruitment strategies for clinical research: Study personnel's and research participants' perceptions about successful methods of outreach for a U.S. Autism-Research Cohort.

Goin-Kochel R, Lozano I, Duhon G, Marzano G, Daniels A, Law J J Clin Transl Sci. 2024; 8(1):e65.

PMID: 38690223 PMC: 11058577. DOI: 10.1017/cts.2024.512.


Palliative surgery: state of the science and future directions.

Lilley E, Farber O, Cooper Z Br J Surg. 2024; 111(3).

PMID: 38502548 PMC: 10949962. DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znae068.


Using a qualitative sub-study to inform the design and delivery of randomised controlled trials on medicinal cannabis for symptom relief in patients with advanced cancer.

Olson R, Smith A, Huggett G, Good P, Dudley M, Hardy J Trials. 2022; 23(1):752.

PMID: 36064621 PMC: 9444122. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06691-1.


Meeting ethical challenges with authenticity when engaging patients and families in end-of-life and palliative care research: a qualitative study.

DeCamp M, Alasmar A, Fischer S, Kutner J BMC Palliat Care. 2022; 21(1):74.

PMID: 35578262 PMC: 9108140. DOI: 10.1186/s12904-022-00964-x.


Successful Strategies and Areas of Improvement-Lessons Learned from Design and Conduction of a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial in Palliative Care, 'Palliative-D'.

Helde Frankling M, Klasson C, Bjorkhem-Bergman L Life (Basel). 2021; 11(11).

PMID: 34833109 PMC: 8619948. DOI: 10.3390/life11111233.


References
1.
Breen A, Carrington M, Collier R, Vogel S . Communication between general and manipulative practitioners: a survey. Complement Ther Med. 2000; 8(1):8-14. View

2.
Mackillop W, Palmer M, OSullivan B, Ward G, Steele R, Dotsikas G . Clinical trials in cancer: the role of surrogate patients in defining what constitutes an ethically acceptable clinical experiment. Br J Cancer. 1989; 59(3):388-95. PMC: 2247073. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1989.78. View

3.
Ellis P . Attitudes towards and participation in randomised clinical trials in oncology: a review of the literature. Ann Oncol. 2000; 11(8):939-45. DOI: 10.1023/a:1008342222205. View

4.
Kirkham S, Abel J . Placebo-controlled trials in palliative care: the argument against. Palliat Med. 1998; 11(6):489-92. DOI: 10.1177/026921639701100611. View

5.
Piggott M, McGee H, Feuer D . Has CONSORT improved the reporting of randomized controlled trials in the palliative care literature? A systematic review. Palliat Med. 2004; 18(1):32-8. DOI: 10.1191/0269216304pm857oa. View