Willingness Of Cancer Patients Research Articles

WITHDRAWN: A Survey on the Attitude and Willingness of Chinese Cancer Patients toward a COVID-19 Booster Vaccine

ObjectiveThe 2019 novel coronavirus is still rapidly mutating and spreading worldwide, posing a great global health challenge, especially vulnerable groups, including cancer patients. Studies comparing the clinical outcomes of cancer patients receiving or not receiving the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines have not yet shown significant benefits. Therefore, this study mainly focused on the attitudes and willingness of cancer patients toward COVID-19 booster vaccines and to distinguish independent predictors that may impact the vaccination of cancer patients. MethodsAn online cross-sectional study was conducted between July 1, 2022 and January 1, 2023 in China. Patients were selected using a convenience sampling method, and a self-reporting questionnaire was developed based on a literature review to evaluate the attitude of cancer patients towards the intensive use of COVID-19 vaccines and the willingness of patients to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Independent predictors associated with accepting a COVID-19 booster vaccine were determined through multivariate logistic regression. ResultsA total of 1055 participants were included in this study. The vaccine acceptance rate was 56.11% (592/1055), while the hesitancy rate was 43.89% (463/1055). Frequent smoking, those who had received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, belief that the COVID-19 booster vaccine was necessary, belief that the COVID-19 booster vaccine was safe and effective, willingness to pay for the COVID-19 booster vaccine, and recommendation of COVID-19 booster vaccine by friends and family were contributing factors for vaccine acceptance. ConclusionThis study recommends developing healthcare policies appropriate for cancer patients to facilitate their acceptance of vaccines, such as publishing the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, providing individualized treatment options after adequate risk assessment and developing specific COVID-19 vaccines suitable for cancer patients.

Effect of chronic diseases on willingness to receive the second COVID-19 vaccine booster dose among cancer patients: A multicenter cross-sectional survey in China

Cancer patients and those with chronic diseases face severe outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, their willingness to receive a second booster dose remains low. This study identified factors affecting the willingness of cancer patients with chronic diseases (CPCD) and cancer patients without chronic diseases (non-CPCD) to receive the second COVID-19 booster vaccine dose. A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted across 4 tertiary care hospitals in China. Based on the Health Belief Model, a questionnaire assessed respondents' perceptions of the second booster dose. Multivariable logistic regression analyzed factors influencing the willingness to receive a second vaccine dose. Out of 171 CPCD and 722 non-CPCD, CPCD showed a higher willingness to receive the second booster dose than non-CPCD (46.8% vs 32.3%, P<.001). Factors influencing CPCD's willingness included the belief that vaccination was detrimental to cancer treatment and the perceived higher infection risk compared to healthy individuals. Fear of vaccination's negative impact on cancer treatment was the main factor affecting non-CPCD's willingness (each P<.05). Different factors influenced the willingness of the 2 groups. Health education interventions should be implemented alongside vaccination, involving patients' relatives and medical staff, for both CPCD and non-CPCD populations. Additionally, health management service interventions should emphasize the benefits of vaccination for CPCD to improve their second dose coverage.

Awareness and perceptions of clinical trials in patients with cancer and their families in Turkey.

e18780 Background: Patient preference plays an important role in enrolling in clinical trials. We conducted this study to understand the perceptions knowledge and willingness of cancer patients or their families about clinical trials. Methods: A questionnaire in Turkish language was conducted including the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants and the factors that may affect their decision to participate in clinical trials. The study was carried out in 5 tertiary health care institutions with clinical research centers in Turkey. Adult patients diagnosed with solid tumors or their family members who agreed to participate were surveyed by medical doctors. Participants were interviewed between January 2020 and April 2021. Comparisons between groups were carried out using chi-square test χ2 for the categorical variables. IBM SPSS25 was used in analyses and p&lt;0.05 was accepted as the level of significance. Results: A total of 978 patients whose age ranged 18 and 82 (Mean= 51.43, SD=14.41) participated in the study. %50.3 was male, %40.7 was female. Willingness to participate a clinical trial was positively corelated with participants self reported health condition is excellent or good (p=0.206), well knowledge about clinical trials (p&lt;0.001), high school or higher education level (p&lt;0.001), household income above poverty level (p=0.003), previously received systemic cancer treatment of himself or family member or friend (p=0.03). %73.7 stated they are more willing to participate if their oncology specialist conducting the clinical trial. %84.3 want to get information about the clinical trial from their oncology specialist. %72.5 stated that positive experiences of a previous clinical trial participant will affect their decision making. Top corcerns about clinical trials are possible treatment side effects (%56.7), being treated as a test subject (%29), risk of placebo (%20.1). Top motivations are accessing best doctors (%45.8), accessing newest and best treatment options (%40.7), getting more information about their health condition (%68.9), helping science adventions (%82.6). Conclusions: Even when patients are eligible for a clinical trial physicians may somehow not discuss the clinical trial option. For patients oncology specialists are a highly trusted source of information and can play an important role in raising awareness and encouraging participation. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Expectations, experiences and preferences of patients and physicians in the informed consent process for clinical trials in oncology.

The aim of the present study was to explore (1) informed consent (IC)representations, level of understanding, needs, and factors that influence the willingness of cancer patients to participate in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (phase I) and (2) representations, experiences, and critical issues of physicians involved in the same process (phase II). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 cancer patients who had been asked to enroll in a phase II/III RCT (phase I). Two focus groups were conducted with 13 physicians enrolled in the same process (phase II). The content produced was analyzed through a thematic analysis. The themes that emerged in the first phase I were grouped into six categories: IC representation, randomization, experimentation, meeting with the physician, factors that influence the willingness to participate, and trial participants' needs. The themes emerged in the phase II were grouped into four: IC representation, critical issues of the IC, relationship, and recruitment of trial participants. Each theme is articulated into sub-themes and deeply discussed. This study highlights (1) the gap between what is ethically demanded in a RCT consultation and the reality of the situation and (2) the difference in perceptions between patients and physicians with reference to the meaning, objectives, and level of understanding of IC.

The Possibility of Conducting a Clinical Trial on Palliative Care: A Survey of Whether a Clinical Study on Cancer Dyspnea Is Acceptable to Cancer Patients and Their Relatives

ContextConducting randomized controlled trials on palliative care is difficult owing to barriers like fragility of the patients’ health status and health care providers’ concerns for patients. However, quality randomized controlled trials are required for care improvement. ObjectivesTo investigate the willingness of cancer patients and their relatives to participate in a clinical study on cancer dyspnea and identify feasible clinical study designs for this condition. MethodsA nationwide, cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted with 206 cancer patients and 206 relatives of cancer patients. Their willingness to participate in clinical studies on cancer dyspnea and factors influencing this willingness were assessed in two scenarios: outpatients receiving anticancer treatment and terminally ill inpatients. ResultsAbout 23% patients and 23% relatives were willing to participate in clinical trials while 40% and 32%, respectively, were unwilling. Factors related to patient participation were quick and easy trials (outpatient 57%, terminally ill 53%) and oral medication with minimal potential side effects (outpatient 48%). Factors related to unwillingness to participate were placebo-controlled trials (outpatient 51%, terminally ill 50%), disagreements about participation between patients and families (outpatient 49%, terminally ill 49%), and continuous injections (outpatient 61%, terminally ill 47%). Compared to patients, relatives responded more reluctantly, especially for patients in terminal care. Conversely, patients were less reluctant in the terminal setting than the outpatient setting. ConclusionSome patients and relatives were reluctant to participate in clinical trials on cancer dyspnea. Thus, trials need to be minimally invasive, quick, and fully explained to and understood by patients and families.

Blockchain-authenticated sharing of cancer patient genomic and clinical outcomes data.

e19358 Background: Efficiently sharing health data produced during standard care could dramatically accelerate progress in cancer treatments but various barriers make this difficult. Not sharing these data to ensure patient privacy is at the cost of little to no learning from real-world data produced during cancer care. Furthermore, recent research has demonstrated a willingness of cancer patients to share their treatment experiences to fuel research, despite potential risks to privacy. The objective of this study was to design, pilot, and release a decentralized, scalable, efficient, economical, and secure strategy for dissemination of de-identified clinical and genomic data with a focus on late stage cancer. Methods: We created and piloted a blockchain-authenticated system to enable securely sharing de-identified patient data derived from standard of care imaging, genomic testing, and electronic health records (EHR), called the Cancer Gene Trust (CGT). We prospectively consented and collected data for a pilot cohort (n = 18), which we uploaded to CGT. EHR data were extracted from both a hospital cancer registry and a common data model format to identify optimal data extraction and dissemination practices. Specifically, we scored and compared the level of completeness between two EHR data extraction formats against the gold-standard source documentation for patients with available data (n = 17). Results: While the total completeness scores were greater for the registry reports than the common data model, this difference was not statistically significant. We did find that some specific data fields, such as histology site, were better captured using the registry reports, which can be used to improve the continually adapting common data model. In terms of the overall pilot study, we found that CGT enables rapid integration of real-world cancer patient data in a more clinically useful timeframe. We also developed an open-source web application to allow users to seamlessly search, browse, explore, and download CGT data. Conclusions: Our pilot demonstrates the willingness of cancer patients to participate in data sharing and how blockchain-enabled structures can maintain relationships between individual data elements while preserving patient privacy, empowering findings by third party researchers and clinicians. We demonstrate the feasibility of CGT as a framework to share health data trapped in silos to further cancer research. Further studies to optimize data representation, stream, and integrity are required.

Sharing of Clinical Trial Data and Samples: The Cancer Patient Perspective.

Introduction: Today, many initiatives and papers are devoted to clinical trial data (and to a lesser extent sample) sharing. Journal editors, pharmaceutical companies, funding agencies, governmental organizations, regulators, and clinical investigators have been debating the legal, ethical, and social implications of clinical data and sample sharing for several years. However, only little research has been conducted to unveil the patient perspective.Aim: To substantiate the current debate, we aimed to explore the attitudes of patients toward the re-use of clinical trial samples and data and to determine how they would prefer to be involved in this process.Materials and Methods: Sixteen in-depth interviews were conducted with cancer patients currently participating in a clinical trial.Results: This study indicates a general willingness of cancer patients participating in a clinical trial to allow re-use of their clinical trial data and/or samples by the original research team, and a generally open approach to share data and/or samples with other research teams, but some would like to be informed in this case. Despite divergent opinions about how patients prefer to be engaged, ranging from passive donors up to those explicitly wanting more control, participants expressed positive opinions toward technical solutions that allow indicating their preferences.Conclusion: Patients were open to sharing and re-use of data and samples to advance medical research but opinions varied on the level of patient involvement and the need for re-consent. A stratified approach for consent that allows individualization of data and sample sharing preferences may be useful, yet the implementation of such an approach warrants further research.

How Cancer Patients Perceive Clinical Trials (CTs) in the Era of CTs: Current Perception and Its Differences Between Common and Rare Cancers.

Perception has recently been highlighted as a critical determinant for participation in clinical trials (CTs) among cancer patients. We evaluated cancer patients' current perceptions of CTs using the PARTAKE questionnaires, focusing on differences between patients with common and rare cancers. From November 2015 to May 2017, we prospectively surveyed patients who had received anti-cancer treatment at Asan Medical Center. Among 333 respondents, 70.9% had common and 29.1% had rare cancers. In the cohort, 87.7% of patients with common cancers and 75.3% of patients with rare cancers answered that they heard of and knew about CTs. However, willingness to participate in CTs was expressed only in approximately 56% of patients, althoughit was significantly associated with awareness and perception. Surprisingly, patients with rare cancers when compared with patients with common cancers showed significantly lower levels of awareness and perception (64.2% vs 79.9%, p = 0.003 and 77.3% vs 91.9%, p < 0.001), and consequently less willingness to participate in CTs (47.4% vs 58.9%, p = 0.06). In addition, cancer patients still harbored fear and concerns about safety and rewardof CTs, and demonstrated substantial lack of knowledge about the voluntary nature of CTs, which was more obvious in patients with rare cancers. We identified relatively modest willingness of cancer patients to participate in CTs regardless of generally favorable perception. These findings are highlighted by the more negative perception of CTs among patients with rare cancers relative to those with common cancers. Further education and encouragement by research and public entities seem essential to improve motivation of CTs in cancer patients beyond good perception, especially for patients with rare cancers.

What influences the willingness of cancer patients to receive hospice palliative care at end of life?

The benefits of hospice palliative care (HPC) for end-of-life (EoL) patients have been widely acknowledged in recent years. There is still limited knowledge about cancer patients' willingness toward HPC. This study aimed to investigate the willingness of cancer patients to receive HPC and the influencing factors. A cross-sectional study was conducted with cancer patients enrolled from teaching hospitals in Taiwan. The questionnaire included demographic characteristics, EoL care preferences, and scales for measuring the willingness to receive HPC, HPC knowledge, and attitude towards HPC. Data were collected by senior nurses and they were analyzed using descriptive and a regression analysis. A total of 148 valid questionnaires were collected. The participants indicated that they 'willing to receive' HPC (mean3.8 on a 5-point scale). The predictors for their willingness to receive HPC were knowledge about HPC (P = 0.001), positive attitude towards HPC (P = 0.008), preference for hospital death (P = 0.022), and preference for quality of life (P = 0.047) as the goal of EoL care. These factors explained 32.7% of the total variance in the willingness to receive HPC. Cancer patients were generally willing to receive HPC. Clinician should discuss EoL care with them earlier. Develop appropriate educational strategies that can provide cancer patients with sufficient and tailored HPC information to develop their knowledge and to create a positive attitude about HPC is necessary, thereby to allow for early HPC intervention and to fulfill the patients' need for HPC.

Awareness and Perceptions of Clinical Trials in Cancer Patients and Their Families in Saudi Arabia.

Despite the increasing number of medical articles being published from the Middle East, clinical research is still lagging behind compared to other regions. Enrolling participants into clinical trials presents an important challenge. We wanted to explore the perception, knowledge, and willingness of cancer patients to participate in oncology clinical trials and to recommend strategies to overcome these challenges. A 31-item questionnaire was administered to cancer patients and their family members in an outpatient clinic. Two hundred four patients and family members were enrolled between December 2011 and February 2013. Fifty-eight percent of the participants were aware of clinical trials. Some misconceptions included the following: 22% believed that no clinical trials were conducted in the Arab world, 19% believed that clinical trials in the Arab world were not under any regulatory authority supervision, and 15% believed that local clinical trials are conducted on subjects without their consent. One third of patients assumed that clinical trials are executed on animals instead of humans, and greater than 40% believed that clinical trials are performed for new medications only. Finally, 61% of the survey participants who were aware of clinical trials expressed their willingness to participate in trials. This large cohort survey demonstrated that a relatively significant number of Saudi cancer patients and their families are aware of clinical trials and a similarly high number of participants are willing to participate in clinical trials. This leads us to believe that patients' awareness and perception of clinical trials are not a significant limiting factor in clinical trial recruitment in our region.

Factors that may influence the willingness of cancer patients to consent for biobanking.

Broad or general consent given by cancer patients for their tissue, blood, and clinical information to be stored in institutional biorepositories is fundamental to enable future ethical translational cancer research. The decision to consent for biobanking will contribute to the development of advanced diagnostic and prognostic tests, as well as new therapies to improve patient outcomes. While the rate of patient participation in biobanking programs is generally reported as high worldwide, few studies have investigated factors that may influence this decision. Biobanking at our medical research institute, an associated public (government-run) university hospital, and private hospital has been established for over 20 years, with collection of certain tumor types embedded in the research culture of these institutions. In this study, we investigated factors that may influence a cancer patient's decision to give broad consent for biobanking of their specimens. Data on patient consent were collected over a 6-month period from both government and private hospitals associated with our medical research institute. Factors considered included gender, patient age at surgery, type of malignancy (breast, duodenal, cervical, endometrial, gastric, liver, esophageal, ovarian, pancreatic, pelvic, uterine, or vulval), type of institution where surgery was performed, and timing of consent. Of 171 cancer patients, 159 (93%) gave broad consent for biobanking of their tissue and blood specimens for future cancer research projects receiving ethical and scientific approval. None of the factors analyzed was shown to influence a patient's decision to contribute biological specimens and clinical data to a biorepository for future medical research. Biobanking for future ethically and scientifically approved research projects in an established institution is an initiative that receives strong support from patients undergoing cancer surgery, independent of factors including gender, age, type of tumor, type of institution where surgery was performed, or timing of consent.

Willingness of cancer patients to help family members to quit smoking

The impact of social support on successful smoking cessation has been well documented. However, little is known about whether personal experience with cancer may motivate cancer survivors to support smoking cessation among their family members and friends. As a first step in this line of research, we sought to explore interest in playing a supportive role for smoking cessation as well as correlates of such interest among cancer survivors. Cancer survivors undergoing radiation therapy (N=211) completed a 77-item pencil-paper questionnaire. A section of the survey assessed interest in helping a smoker quit and characteristics of the smoking social network member. Respondents provided information on their smoking status, medical status, and psychosocial and behavioral factors related to cigarette smoking. Over half of the respondents 114 (54%) reported having someone close to them (family member or friend) smoking cigarettes who they thought should quit. Of these respondents (44 females, 70 males) 78% (89/114) reported they were definitely or probably interested in helping a smoker quit. Nearly all respondents wanted to help a family member (typically an adult child). Results suggest the potential feasibility of engaging cancer survivors to help family members quit smoking. Research is needed to determine the optimal methods and timing for engaging the cancer patient to maximize positive effects and minimize potential harms.

Willingness of cancer patients to discuss advance directives with admitting doctor or oncologists

9539 Background: Many seriously ill cancer patients do not discuss prognosis or advance directives (ADs), which may lead to aggressive care at end of life (Harrison &amp; Smith, JAMA 2008). Ten years ago, cancer patients did not want to discuss ADs with their oncologist (ONC), but would discuss them with an admitting doctor (Lamont JPM 2000).We assessed if this still held. Methods: We administered semi-structured interviews to cancer inpatients on the VCUHS Hematology-Oncology service. 55/63 consecutive patients accrued. Information was collected regarding ADs and knowledge of hospice/palliative care. Results: Of those enrolled, 22/55 (40%) reported having ADs. Only 2/55 had discussed ADs with their oncologist. Only 12/55 (22%) would want to discuss ADs with their ONC. But when specifically asked, 22/55 (40%) of patients would prefer to discuss ADs with their oncologist, and 40% with their primary care doctor. 86% would discuss ADs with the admitting doctor. There was no difference in doctor preference based upon prior AD completion. The preference not to discuss ADs with the oncologist was often because they felt their family could make the decisions, or that it was only necessary “If it got serious.” There was a common misconception that ADs mean death is imminent and lead to termination of care. Conclusions: Most patients (86%) are willing to discuss ADs with an admitting doctor, but only a small number (22%) want to discuss with their ONC. However, most patients will discuss ADs and 40% actually prefer their ONC if ADs are discussed. We therefore need to train primary care doctors, house staff, hospitalists, and oncologists to have these difficult discussions. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.