Patient understanding and acceptability of an early lung cancer diagnosis trial: a qualitative study
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Standard Standard
In: Trials, Vol. 19, 419, 04.08.2018.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Patient understanding and acceptability of an early lung cancer diagnosis trial: a qualitative study
AU - Prout, Hayley C
AU - Barham, Allan
AU - Bongard, Emily
AU - Edwards, Rhiannon
AU - Griffiths, Gareth
AU - Hamilton, Willie
AU - Harrop, Emily
AU - Hood, Kerry
AU - Hurt, Chris N
AU - Nelson, Rosie
AU - Porter, Catherine
AU - Roberts, Kirsty
AU - Rogers, Trevor
AU - Thomas-Jones, Emma
AU - Tod, Angela
AU - Yeo, Seow Tien
AU - Neal, Richard D
AU - Nelson, Annmarie
PY - 2018/8/4
Y1 - 2018/8/4
N2 - Background: The ELCID (Early Lung Cancer Investigation and Diagnosis) trial was a feasibility randomised controlled trial examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of lowering the threshold for referral for urgent chest x-ray for smokers and recent ex-smokers, aged over 60 years with new chest symptoms. The qualitative component aimed to explore the feasibility of individually randomising patients to an urgent chest x-ray or not and to investigate any barriers to patient recruitment and participation. We integrated this within the feasibility trial to inform the design of any future definitive trial, particularly in view of the lack of research exploring symptomatic patients’ experiences of participating in diagnostic trials for possible/suspected lung cancer. Although previous studies contributed valuable information concerning screening for lung cancer and patient participation in trials, this paper is the first to explore issues relating to this specific patient group.Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patients, comprising 9 who had been randomised to receive an immediate chest x-ray, 10 who were randomised to receive the standard treatment according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and 2 who chose not to participate in the trial. Interviews were analysed using a framework approach.Results: The findings of this analysis showed that altruism, personal benefit and the reassurance of not having lung cancer were important factors in patient participation. However, patients largely believed that being in the intervention arm was more beneficial, highlighting a lack of understanding of clinical equipoise. Disincentives to participation in the trial included the stigmatisation of patients who smoked (given the inclusion criteria). Although the majority of patients reported that they were happy with the trial design, there was evidence of poor understanding. Last, for several patients, placing trust in health professionals was preferred to understanding the trial processes.Conclusions: The integration of a qualitative study focusing on participant experience as a secondary outcome of a feasibility trial enabled exploration of patient response to participation and recruitment. The study demonstratedthat although it is feasible to recruit patients to the ELCID trial, more work needs to be done to ensure an understanding of study principles and also of smoking stigmatisation.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344005. Registered on 27 April 2011.Keywords: Feasibility studies, Lung neoplasms, Patient preference, Primary healthcare, Qualitative research, Quality of life, Random allocation, Referral and consultation, Smoking, X-rays
AB - Background: The ELCID (Early Lung Cancer Investigation and Diagnosis) trial was a feasibility randomised controlled trial examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of lowering the threshold for referral for urgent chest x-ray for smokers and recent ex-smokers, aged over 60 years with new chest symptoms. The qualitative component aimed to explore the feasibility of individually randomising patients to an urgent chest x-ray or not and to investigate any barriers to patient recruitment and participation. We integrated this within the feasibility trial to inform the design of any future definitive trial, particularly in view of the lack of research exploring symptomatic patients’ experiences of participating in diagnostic trials for possible/suspected lung cancer. Although previous studies contributed valuable information concerning screening for lung cancer and patient participation in trials, this paper is the first to explore issues relating to this specific patient group.Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patients, comprising 9 who had been randomised to receive an immediate chest x-ray, 10 who were randomised to receive the standard treatment according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and 2 who chose not to participate in the trial. Interviews were analysed using a framework approach.Results: The findings of this analysis showed that altruism, personal benefit and the reassurance of not having lung cancer were important factors in patient participation. However, patients largely believed that being in the intervention arm was more beneficial, highlighting a lack of understanding of clinical equipoise. Disincentives to participation in the trial included the stigmatisation of patients who smoked (given the inclusion criteria). Although the majority of patients reported that they were happy with the trial design, there was evidence of poor understanding. Last, for several patients, placing trust in health professionals was preferred to understanding the trial processes.Conclusions: The integration of a qualitative study focusing on participant experience as a secondary outcome of a feasibility trial enabled exploration of patient response to participation and recruitment. The study demonstratedthat although it is feasible to recruit patients to the ELCID trial, more work needs to be done to ensure an understanding of study principles and also of smoking stigmatisation.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344005. Registered on 27 April 2011.Keywords: Feasibility studies, Lung neoplasms, Patient preference, Primary healthcare, Qualitative research, Quality of life, Random allocation, Referral and consultation, Smoking, X-rays
U2 - 10.1186/s13063-018-2803-4
DO - 10.1186/s13063-018-2803-4
M3 - Article
VL - 19
JO - Trials
JF - Trials
SN - 1745-6215
M1 - 419
ER -