Cargando…
Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent
BACKGROUND: Clinical cancer research trials may offer little or no direct clinical benefit to participants where a cure is no longer possible. As such, the decision-making and consent process for patient participation is often challenging. AIM: To gain understanding of how patients make decisions re...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7602307/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33126874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12904-020-00661-7 |
_version_ | 1783603648024018944 |
---|---|
author | Murphy, Mary McCaughan, Eilís Carson, Matthew A Donovan, Monica Wilson, Richard H Fitzsimons, Donna |
author_facet | Murphy, Mary McCaughan, Eilís Carson, Matthew A Donovan, Monica Wilson, Richard H Fitzsimons, Donna |
author_sort | Murphy, Mary |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Clinical cancer research trials may offer little or no direct clinical benefit to participants where a cure is no longer possible. As such, the decision-making and consent process for patient participation is often challenging. AIM: To gain understanding of how patients make decisions regarding clinical trial participation, from the perspective of both the patient and healthcare professionals involved. METHODS: In-depth, face to face interviews using a grounded theory approach. This study was conducted in a regional Cancer Centre in the United Kingdom. Of the 36 interviews, 16 were conducted with patients with cancer that had non-curative intent and 18 with healthcare professionals involved in the consent process. RESULTS: ‘Nothing to lose’ was identified as the core category that underpinned all other data within the study. This highlighted the desperation articulated by participants, who asserted trial participation was the ‘only hope in the room’. The decision regarding participation was taken within a ‘trusting relationship’ that was important to both patients and professionals. Both were united in their ‘fight against cancer’. These two categories are critical in understanding the decision-making/consent process and are supported by other themes presented in the theoretical model. CONCLUSION: This study presents an important insight into the complex and ethically contentious situation of consent in clinical trials that have non-curative intent. It confirms that patients with limited options trust their doctor and frequently hold unrealistic hopes for personal benefit. It highlights a need for further research to develop a more robust and context appropriate consent process. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7602307 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76023072020-11-02 Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent Murphy, Mary McCaughan, Eilís Carson, Matthew A Donovan, Monica Wilson, Richard H Fitzsimons, Donna BMC Palliat Care Research Article BACKGROUND: Clinical cancer research trials may offer little or no direct clinical benefit to participants where a cure is no longer possible. As such, the decision-making and consent process for patient participation is often challenging. AIM: To gain understanding of how patients make decisions regarding clinical trial participation, from the perspective of both the patient and healthcare professionals involved. METHODS: In-depth, face to face interviews using a grounded theory approach. This study was conducted in a regional Cancer Centre in the United Kingdom. Of the 36 interviews, 16 were conducted with patients with cancer that had non-curative intent and 18 with healthcare professionals involved in the consent process. RESULTS: ‘Nothing to lose’ was identified as the core category that underpinned all other data within the study. This highlighted the desperation articulated by participants, who asserted trial participation was the ‘only hope in the room’. The decision regarding participation was taken within a ‘trusting relationship’ that was important to both patients and professionals. Both were united in their ‘fight against cancer’. These two categories are critical in understanding the decision-making/consent process and are supported by other themes presented in the theoretical model. CONCLUSION: This study presents an important insight into the complex and ethically contentious situation of consent in clinical trials that have non-curative intent. It confirms that patients with limited options trust their doctor and frequently hold unrealistic hopes for personal benefit. It highlights a need for further research to develop a more robust and context appropriate consent process. BioMed Central 2020-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7602307/ /pubmed/33126874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12904-020-00661-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Murphy, Mary McCaughan, Eilís Carson, Matthew A Donovan, Monica Wilson, Richard H Fitzsimons, Donna Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent |
title | Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent |
title_full | Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent |
title_fullStr | Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent |
title_full_unstemmed | Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent |
title_short | Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent |
title_sort | nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7602307/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33126874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12904-020-00661-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT murphymary nothingtoloseagroundedtheorystudyofpatientsandhealthcareprofessionalsperspectivesofbeinginvolvedintheconsentprocessforoncologytrialswithnoncurativeintent AT mccaughaneilis nothingtoloseagroundedtheorystudyofpatientsandhealthcareprofessionalsperspectivesofbeinginvolvedintheconsentprocessforoncologytrialswithnoncurativeintent AT carsonmatthewa nothingtoloseagroundedtheorystudyofpatientsandhealthcareprofessionalsperspectivesofbeinginvolvedintheconsentprocessforoncologytrialswithnoncurativeintent AT donovanmonica nothingtoloseagroundedtheorystudyofpatientsandhealthcareprofessionalsperspectivesofbeinginvolvedintheconsentprocessforoncologytrialswithnoncurativeintent AT wilsonrichardh nothingtoloseagroundedtheorystudyofpatientsandhealthcareprofessionalsperspectivesofbeinginvolvedintheconsentprocessforoncologytrialswithnoncurativeintent AT fitzsimonsdonna nothingtoloseagroundedtheorystudyofpatientsandhealthcareprofessionalsperspectivesofbeinginvolvedintheconsentprocessforoncologytrialswithnoncurativeintent |