scholarly journals Monitoring Twitter Conversations for Targeted Recruitment in Cancer Trials in LA County: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Pilot Study (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katja Reuter ◽  
Praveen Angyan ◽  
NamQuyen Le ◽  
Alicia MacLennan ◽  
Sarah Cole ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
The Social ◽  
Media Intervention ◽  
Twitter Users

BACKGROUND Insufficient recruitment of participants remains a critical roadblock to successful clinical research, in particular clinical trials. Social media (SM) provides new ways for connecting potential participants with research opportunities. Researchers suggested that the social network Twitter may serve as a rich avenue for exploring how patients communicate about their health issues and increasing enrollment in cancer clinical trials. However, there is a lack of evidence that Twitter offers practical utility and impact. OBJECTIVE The objective of this pilot study is to examine the feasibility and impact of using Twitter monitoring data (i.e., user activity and their conversations about cancer-related conditions and concerns expressed by Twitter users in LA County) as a tool for enhancing clinical trial recruitment at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS We will conduct a mixed-methods interrupted time series study design with a before and after SM recruitment intervention. Based on a preliminary analysis of eligible trials, we plan to onboard at least 84 clinical trials across six disease categories: breast cancer, colon cancer, kidney cancer, lymphoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and prostate cancer that are open to accrual at the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center (USC Norris). We will monitor messages about the six cancer conditions posted by Twitter users in LA County. Recruitment for the trials will occur through the Twitter account (@USCTrials). Primary study outcomes include, first, feasibility and acceptance of the social media intervention among targeted Twitter users and the study teams of the onboarded trials, which will be assessed using qualitative interviews and 4-point Likert scale, and calculating the proportion of targeted Twitter users who engaged with outreach messages. Second, impact of the social media intervention will be measured by calculating the proportion of people who enrolled in trials. The enrollment rate will be compared between the active intervention period and the prior 10 months as historical control for each disease trial group. RESULTS This study has been funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) through a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) award. Study approval was obtained from the Clinical Investigations Committee (CIC) at USC Norris and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at USC. Recruitment on Twitter started in February 2018. Data collection will be completed in November 2018. CONCLUSIONS This pilot project will provide preliminary data and practical insight into the application of publicly available Twitter data to identify and recruit clinical trial participants center across six cancer disease types. We will shed light on the acceptance of the SM intervention among Twitter users and study team members of the onboarded trials. If successful, the findings will inform a multisite, randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of the social media intervention across different locations and populations.

Evaluation of a feasibility study using patient-generated health data from Twitter to identify, engage, and recruit cancer survivors in clinical trials in Los Angeles County (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katja Reuter ◽  
Praveen Angyan ◽  
NamQuyen Le ◽  
Thomas A. Buchanan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Los Angeles County ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Health Data ◽  
The Social ◽  
Twitter Users

BACKGROUND Failure to find and attract clinical trial participants remains a persistent barrier to clinical research. Researchers increasingly complement recruitment methods with social media-based methods. We hypothesized that user-generated data from cancer survivors and their family members/friends on the social network Twitter could be used to identify, engage, and recruit cancer survivors into cancer trials. OBJECTIVE This pilot examined the feasibility of using user-reported health data from cancer survivors and family members/friends on Twitter in Los Angeles County for enhancing clinical trial recruitment. We focused on six cancer conditions (breast, colon, kidney, lymphoma, lung cancer, and prostate). METHODS The social media intervention involved (1) monitoring cancer-specific posts about the six cancers by Twitter users in Los Angeles (L.A.) County to identify cancer survivors and their family members/friends, and (2) contacting eligible Twitter users with information about open cancer trials at the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center (USC Norris). We reviewed both retrospective and prospective data published by Twitter users in L.A. County between July 28, 2017 and November 29, 2018. The study enrolled 124 open clinical trials at USC Norris. We used descriptive statistics to report the proportion of Twitter users who were identified, engaged, and enrolled. RESULTS We analyzed 107,424 Twitter posts in English by 25,032 unique Twitter users in L.A. County for the six cancer conditions. We identified and contacted 434 (1.7%) eligible cancer survivors (29.3 %; 127/434) and their family members/friends (70.3%; 305/434). Half of them were female and about a third was male. About one-fifth were Persons of Color, while most of them were White. About one-fifth (19.6%, 85/434) engaged with the outreach messages (cancer survivors: 38.2%, 33/85; family members/friends: 61.2%, 52/85). A quarter of those who engaged with the message were male, the majority were women, and about one-fifth were People of Color, while the majority was White. Nearly 12% (10/85) of the contacted users requested more information and 40% (4/10) set up a pre-screening. Two eligible candidates were transferred to USC Norris for further screening. Both were eligible for trial participation, but none of them enrolled. CONCLUSIONS Our findings demonstrate the potential of identifying and engaging cancer survivors and their family members/friends on Twitter. The optimization of downstream recruitment efforts such as screening for ‘digital populations’ on social media may be required. Future research could test the feasibility of the approach for other diseases, locations, languages, social media platforms, and types of research involvement (eg, survey research). Computer science methods could help to scale up the analysis of larger datasets to support more rigorous testing of the intervention. CLINICALTRIAL not applicable

Evaluating the Financial Impact of Clinical Trials in Oncology: Results From a Pilot Study From the Association of American Cancer Institutes/Northwestern University Clinical Trials Costs and Charges Project

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (15) ◽  
pp. 2805-2810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles L. Bennett ◽  
Tammy J. Stinson ◽  
Victor Vogel ◽  
Lyn Robertson ◽  
Donald Leedy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Economic Analyses

PURPOSE: Medical care for clinical trials is often not reimbursed by insurers, primarily because of concern that medical care as part of clinical trials is expensive and not part of standard medical practice. In June 2000, President Clinton ordered Medicare to reimburse for medical care expenses incurred as part of cancer clinical trials, although many private insurers are concerned about the expense of this effort. To inform this policy debate, the costs and charges of care for patients on clinical trials are being evaluated. In this Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI) Clinical Trials Costs and Charges pilot study, we describe the results and operational considerations of one of the first completed multisite economic analyses of clinical trials. METHODS: Our pilot effort included assessment of total direct medical charges for 6 months of care for 35 case patients who received care on phase II clinical trials and for 35 matched controls (based on age, sex, disease, stage, and treatment period) at five AACI member cancer centers. Charge data were obtained for hospital and ancillary services from automated claims files at individual study institutions. The analyses were based on the perspective of a third-party payer. RESULTS: The mean age of the phase II clinical trial patients was 58.3 years versus 57.3 years for control patients. The study population included persons with cancer of the breast (n = 24), lung (n = 18), colon (n = 16), prostate (n = 4), and lymphoma (n = 8). The ratio of male-to-female patients was 3:4, with greater than 75% of patients having stage III to IV disease. Total mean charges for treatment from the time of study enrollment through 6 months were similar: $57,542 for clinical trial patients and $63,721 for control patients (1998 US$; P = .4) CONCLUSION: Multisite economic analyses of oncology clinical trials are in progress. Strategies that are not likely to overburden data managers and clinicians are possible to devise. However, these studies require careful planning and coordination among cancer center directors, finance department personnel, economists, and health services researchers.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patterns of care: Implications for clinical trial design

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4079-4079 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. S. Denlinger ◽  
M. A. Collins ◽  
Y. Wong ◽  
S. Litwin ◽  
N. J. Meropol
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Treatment Change ◽  
Therapy Regimen

4079 Background: New approaches have expanded options for patients (pts) with mCRC. To characterize current practice paradigms that might bear on clinical trial design, we analyzed decision-making and treatment patterns in pts treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center since the introduction of cetuximab (CET), and bevacizumab (BV). Methods: A retrospective review of all pts diagnosed with mCRC between 3/1/04 and 8/28/06 treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center. Results: 160 pts were treated, with 157 pts receiving at least one therapy regimen by 10 attending oncologists. There were 350 changes in therapy with 246 (70%) including continuation of at least one prior drug (92 BV, 111 fluoropyrimidines, 43 other). The most common reasons for treatment change were toxicity (33%), progressive disease (PD) (29%), treatment breaks (15%), and metastasectomy (11%) ( Table ). PD was a more common cause for treatment discontinuation in later phases of treatment (18% initial regimen vs. 36% subsequent regimens, p=0.0002). 24% of pts treated with oxaliplatin (OX) discontinued due to neuropathy. Hypersensitivity caused discontinuation in 5% of pts with OX and 7% of pts with CET. Resection of metastases was undertaken in 38% of pts. 43% of these pts received neoadjuvant therapy, and 56% received adjuvant therapy. 30% of pts have died, 29% remain on active treatment, 28% are on a treatment break, 3% are on hospice, and 11% are lost to follow-up. Conclusions: PD is no longer the primary reason for change of therapy in pts with mCRC. Metastasectomy is common and OX neuropathy is often treatment-limiting. These findings have important implications for endpoint selection and design of clinical trials in mCRC. Future clinical trials in mCRC must recognize treatment complexities and capture key components of decision-making that may result in prolonged survival. Furthermore, treatment breaks represent a potential window for the evaluation of new drugs. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Trial Prospector: Matching Patients with Cancer Research Studies Using an Automated and Scalable Approach

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. CIN.S19454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satya S. Sahoo ◽  
Shiqiang Tao ◽  
Andrew Parchman ◽  
Zhihui Luo ◽  
Licong Cui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Dramatic Improvement ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Physician Participation ◽  
Time Required

Cancer is responsible for approximately 7.6 million deaths per year worldwide. A 2012 survey in the United Kingdom found dramatic improvement in survival rates for childhood cancer because of increased participation in clinical trials. Unfortunately, overall patient participation in cancer clinical studies is low. A key logistical barrier to patient and physician participation is the time required for identification of appropriate clinical trials for individual patients. We introduce the Trial Prospector tool that supports end-to-end management of cancer clinical trial recruitment workflow with (a) structured entry of trial eligibility criteria, (b) automated extraction of patient data from multiple sources, (c) a scalable matching algorithm, and (d) interactive user interface (UI) for physicians with both matching results and a detailed explanation of causes for ineligibility of available trials. We report the results from deployment of Trial Prospector at the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Case Comprehensive Cancer Center (Case CCC) with 1,367 clinical trial eligibility evaluations performed with 100% accuracy.

Comparison of the demographics of patients enrolled (E) versus those not enrolled (NE) on therapeutic clinical trials at a comprehensive cancer center

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17065-17065
Author(s):  
S. Goodin ◽  
D. C. Vamos ◽  
M. P. Kane ◽  
J. Nishioka ◽  
S. Lisi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Enrollment Rates

17065 Background: In the U.S., representation of minorities and the elderly in clinical trials has been low yet few reports have evaluated this potential barrier to enrollment by comparing the demographics of patients E vs NE within an institution. Therefore, we compared these groups to determine if there were significant differences in demographics at our center. Methods: For all E patients, demographic data is collected in a clinical trial database. For evaluated NE patients, data was captured through a ‘non-protocol’ form. A univariate analysis was performed on the demographic data, including gender, age, race, and insurance status, for each year to determine if there were differences in patients E vs NE on a therapeutic clinical trial. Results: From June 2003 through December 2005, there were 912 E patients and data available on 474 NE patients. The results were consistent for each year from 2003 to 2005, and therefore combinable, with no statistical difference in any parameter for E patients versus NE patients during any year with the exception of gender (p=0.05; Chi-square). The distribution of patients E by gender is 52% (474/912) female vs 48% (438/912) male and NE is 69% (325/474) female vs 31% (149/474) male. The mean age of E patients was 55 vs 56 years for NE patients, with 32% vs 33% representing those >65years, respectively. For the E patients, 84% were white, 7.2% black, 4.6% Asian, 4.2% unknown, and 0.4% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (H/PI). For the NE patients, where race was not consistently available, 65% were white, 9.3% black, 3.2% Asian, 20.5% unknown, and 2.1% H/PI. In both groups, most patients had private insurance (E 60%, NE 54%), followed by Medicare (E 27.5%, NE 29%), Medicaid (E 4%, NE 9%), self pay (E 7.5%, NE 7.4%), and unknown (E 1.3%, NE 0.4%). Conclusions: When comparing E vs NE patients, gender was the only factor that differed significantly. Although this result suggests that males were more likely to be E in a clinical trial, this finding should be interpreted with caution, since this difference might relate to differences in trial availability. While lower enrollment rates for the elderly and minority patients have been identified nationally, enrolling this group of patients does not appear to be a barrier at our center. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Stepwise examination of prostate clinical trials participation to reduce accrual barriers.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 157-157
Author(s):  
Dare Olatoye ◽  
Michael Anthony Carducci ◽  
Norma Kanarek
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Local Therapy ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Therapeutic Trial ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation

157 Background: Adequate and representative enrollment in therapeutic clinical trials is important to an NCI cancer center. Clinical trial participation is a string of 6 sequential patient and physician decisions beginning with an available therapeutic trial to enrollment in the trial. Opportunities for participation may be lost at any one of these steps. The objective of this study was to calculate transitional probabilities that measure patient, especially minority patient, accrual to clinical trials at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center and to describe the barriers for those dropping out at each step. Methods: Records for “first visit” medical oncology patients seen by three SKCCC physicians from January to April 2010 were abstracted. Prostate cancer case reports from the hospital cancer registry and a medical record review provided age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, place of residence, tumor characteristics, and prior treatment history. At each transition step, we calculated the proportion of patients who remained enrollable. Results: Overall, prostate cancer clinical trial participation was 17% (16/94). Minority accrual was similar to Caucasian accrual at 19% and 17% , respectively. Retention at each step of trial participation was highest for “discussed” (98%), “enrolled” (94%), “eligibility” for available trials (79%), and “consented” (71%). Two bottlenecks were qualitatively identified: “trial availability” (65%) and “patient interest” (51%). Forty-two percent of those for whom there was no trial available were older than 70 years and 33% were patients with rising PSA after local therapy and hormone-naïve. The “patient interest” step was shaped primarily by disinterest due to distance to SKCCC (83%). Conclusions: For prostate cancer patients, recruitment to medical oncology clinical trials is robust. Minority patients however are only 17% of all patients seen and half drop out when no trial is available and half of those remaining judged distance to be a problem (hence, no interest). This study approach has clarified which factors are likely to be barriers to participation and is likely useful to making adjustments that can reduce identified barriers by adding to trial portfolio as an example.

The cancer care network clinical trials program: Rising from the camp fire ashes.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 168-168
Author(s):  
Ofilio Ramon Vigil ◽  
Dana Ann Little ◽  
Kristin J. Mensonides ◽  
Richard J. Bold
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Rural Communities ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Care Network ◽  
Research Oversight ◽  
The City

168 Background: The UC Davis Health Cancer Care Network (CCN) in Sacramento improves quality through partnerships with community cancer centers and the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center (UCDCCC). The UCDCCC, as an NCI Lead Academic Participating Site (LAPS) grant recipient, lists Adventist Health Rideout Cancer Center (RCC) in Marysville (42 miles north of Sacramento) as a component. The Adventist Health Feather River Cancer Center (FRCC) and the town of Paradise were devastated by the 2018 Camp Fire, forcing FRCC’s relocation to the city of Chico (49 miles north of Marysville). FRCC was forced to disband its local IRB and unable to continue clinical trials research operations during the aftermath of this natural disaster. The CCN established an affiliation with the FRCC in April 2019. Future plans include establishing an IRB agreement and adding FRCC as a LAPS component. The CCN identified strategies to facilitate the participation of FRCC patients in clinical trials. Methods: The CCN identified 13 NCTN clinical trials with 34 enrolled patients that were in need of appropriate research oversight. Four of these trials were previously never activated at the UCDCCC or its affiliates. CCN staff engaged leaders at the various institutions involved: Quality Assurance (QA) Managers at each NCTN research base, the CIRB, the local IRB, the CTSU, and other leaders within UC Davis and Adventist Health. Results: Stakeholders acknowledged the unusual and urgent nature of our requests and questions, while contributing to the development of a plan allowing patients to continue clinical trial participation. QA managers approved a plan transferring patients to the RCC, allowing research staff to collect and submit data while patients continue receiving care closer to home. Together we developed a notification letter to inform patients of this plan. Conclusions: The relocation of facilities and patients brought rare challenges while conducting clinical research in rural communities. We learned that the cooperation and flexibility of all parties involved was crucial in supporting the continued care for FRCC's clinical trial patients and research contributions.

Bridging the gaps between tertiary and community care networks: Results from a southern California survey research analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1538-1538
Author(s):  
Alex Chehrazi-Raffle ◽  
Nicholas Salgia ◽  
Joann Hsu ◽  
Zeynep Busra Zengin ◽  
Sabrina Salgia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Southern California ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Community Practice ◽  
Electronic Data Capture System ◽  
Tertiary Center

1538 Background: Although many tertiary cancer centers offer access to myriad research protocols, the majority of patients nevertheless receive treatment at community practices. We sought to examine the barriers that hamper clinical collaboration between tertiary and community practice environments in Southern California. Methods: A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists using REDCap, a browser-based electronic data capture system. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge pertaining to clinical trials, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices. Results: The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it in full. The most common institutional affiliations were City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center (58%), University of California, Los Angeles (10%), and Cedars Sinai Medical Center (8%). In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for pt referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners as compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Of note, while a majority of tertiary center providers (52%) described the primary value of community practices to be a source of referrals for clinical trials, most community oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers. Conclusions: Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients’ access to clinical trials.

Medication safety in cancer clinical trials: An analysis of medication error reports at a comprehensive cancer center

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6547-6547 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. P. Kane ◽  
K. Fessele ◽  
J. Gordilis-Perez ◽  
S. Schwartz ◽  
S. Lisi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medication Errors ◽  
Education And Training ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Healthcare Team ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
And Training

6547 Background: Although medication errors comprise 10–25% of all medical errors, little is known concerning the occurrence or types of medication errors occurring while treating patients on a clinical trial. Therefore, we retrospectively reviewed the medication errors reported in patients enrolled on clinical trials at our center. Methods: As part of a multidisciplinary continuous quality improvement project, from January 2003 through December 2006, we collected voluntary reports of medication errors in adult and pediatric patients on clinical trials involving both oral and intravenous chemotherapy. All reports were classified prospectively regarding clinical trial involvement, severity category (A to I) per the National Coordination Council on Medical Error Reporting and Prevention, type, cause, and where in the medication use process the error occurred. Results: There were 163 reports involving patients treated on clinical trials. The most common errors were those corrected prior to reaching the patient in 68% of events (Category A&B), while 31% reached the patient but did not result in harm (Category C&D), with 1% resulting in temporary patient harm (Category E&F). The most common type of errors were prescribing (66%), improper dose (42%), and omission errors (9%). Not following an institutional procedure or the protocol was the primary cause for these errors (39%), followed by the written order (30%), and poor communication involving both the healthcare team and the patient (26%). The processes where the errors initiated were in prescribing 47%, administration 10%, dispensing 6%, and monitoring 5%. Conclusion: Medication errors do occur in clinical trials, however the majority of these are corrected prior to reaching the patient or do not result in harm. Not following an institutional procedure or the protocol was the most common cause of error. This is most likely due to the protocol procedures differing from existing standards of care. Protocol-specific education through the Centralized Education and Training Service, a shared resource within our cancer center, addresses this issue enhancing the quality and safety of clinical trials through the education and training of healthcare professionals. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Do clinical trial acronyms affect patients’ interest in clinical trials? A randomized survey.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6639-6639
Author(s):  
Meagan Wiebe ◽  
Liying Zhang ◽  
Gillian Spiegle ◽  
Yoo-Joung Ko
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Likert Scale ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Demographic Information ◽  
Empirical Examination ◽  
Ordinal Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Paper Survey ◽  
Clinical Trial Methods

6639 Background: The use of acronyms in naming clinical trials has increased in recent years with minimal empirical examination of the effect that they have on research participants. The naming of trials is often a symbolic act; however, they may have a provocative origin that stimulates associations and influences perceptions of the research. No empirical evidence exists to confirm the supposition that certain trial acronyms may be coercive. The purpose of this study was to determine if a clinical trial title has an influence on a subject’s interest in a fictitious clinical trial. Methods: Two fictitious clinical trial scenarios (prevention and metastatic) for colon cancer were designed with the same three acronym titles (“CURE” a coercive, “RESCUE” a potentially coercive, and “COMET” a neutral acronym). An anonymous paper survey was randomly distributed to patients and caregivers at a comprehensive cancer center over a four-week period. Six different surveys were distributed and self-administered. Participants rated their interest in the clinical trial on a 5-point Likert scale and demographic information was collected. To determine the influence of acronym type on the Likert scale, univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: A response rate of 77.19% (1056/1368) was achieved. The specific acronym type (coercive and potentially coercive versus neutral) had no significant influence on the respondent’s interest in the clinical trial in either the preventive (p=0.787, OR=0.95) or the metastatic (p=0.284, OR=1.21) scenario. Only current (p=0.025, OR=1.56) or prior (p=0.038, OR=1.43) participation in a clinical trial positively influenced respondent’s interest in the fictitious clinical trials irrespective of the acronym title. Conclusions: Acronyms are commonly used in naming clinical trials and may facilitate clinician recall and familiarity. Although trial names may be perceived as potentially coercive, the results from this study suggest that coercive or potentially coercive acronym titles do not appear to influence patients’ or caregivers’ interest in the clinical trial.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document