Dawn M. Miller

SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF RECOVERY FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA-RELATED DISORDERS AND ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS

Aims: This article investigates the subjective experience of the process of improvement and recovery from the point of view of persons diagnosed (according to research diagnostic criteria) with schizophrenia and schizo-affective disorders. Methods: A community study of persons using psychiatric services was conducted for a sample of ninety subjects taking atypical antipsychotic medications. Sociodemographic data and clinical ratings were collected to complement the qualitatively developed Subjective Experience of Medication Interview (SEMI), which elicits narrative data on everyday activities, medication and treatment, management of symptoms, expectations concerning recovery, stigma, and quality of life. Results: Recovery was observed through: (1) relatively low ratings of psychiatrically observed symptomatology through BPRS scores; (2) the subjective sense among the majority (77.4%) of participants that taking medication plays a critical role in managing symptoms and avoiding hospitalization; and (3) the subjective sense articulated by the vast majority (80%) that they would recover from their illness and that the quality of their lives would improve (70.6%). Conclusion: The overall quality of improvement and recovery is best characterized as an incremental, yet definitively discernable, subjective process.

Randomized Trial of a Web-Based Intervention to Address Barriers to Clinical Trials

PURPOSE Lack of knowledge and negative attitudes have been identified as barriers to participation in clinical trials by patients with cancer. We developed Preparatory Education About Clinical Trials (PRE-ACT), a theory-guided, Web-based, interactive computer program, to deliver tailored video educational content to patients in an effort to overcome barriers to considering clinical trials as a treatment option. PATIENTS AND METHODS A prospective, randomized clinical trial compared PRE-ACT with a control condition that provided general clinical trials information produced by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in text format. One thousand two hundred fifty-five patients with cancer were randomly allocated before their initial visit with an oncologist to PRE-ACT (n = 623) or control (n = 632). PRE-ACT had three main components: assessment of clinical trials knowledge and attitudinal barriers, values assessment with clarification back to patients, and provision of a video library tailored to address each patients barriers. Outcomes included knowledge and attitudes and preparation for decision making about clinical trials. RESULTS Both PRE-ACT and control interventions improved knowledge and attitudes (all P < .001) compared with baseline. Patients randomly allocated to PRE-ACT showed a significantly greater increase in knowledge (P < .001) and a significantly greater decrease in attitudinal barriers (P < .001) than did their control (text-only) counterparts. Participants in both arms significantly increased their preparedness to consider clinical trials (P < .001), and there was a trend favoring the PRE-ACT group (P < .09). PRE-ACT was also associated with greater patient satisfaction than was NCI text alone. CONCLUSION These data show that patient education before the first oncologist visit improves knowledge, attitudes, and preparation for decision making about clinical trials. Both text and tailored video were effective. The PRE-ACT interactive video program was more effective than NCI text in improving knowledge and reducing attitudinal barriers.

Application of best practice approaches for designing decision support tools: the preparatory education about clinical trials (PRE-ACT) study.

OBJECTIVE This article describes the rigorous development process and initial feedback of the PRE-ACT (Preparatory Education About Clinical Trials) web-based- intervention designed to improve preparation for decision making in cancer clinical trials. METHODS The multi-step process included stakeholder input, formative research, user testing and feedback. Diverse teams (researchers, advocates and developers) participated including content refinement, identification of actors, and development of video scripts. Patient feedback was provided in the final production period and through a vanguard group (N=100) from the randomized trial. RESULTS Patients/advocates confirmed barriers to cancer clinical trial participation, including lack of awareness and knowledge, fear of side effects, logistical concerns, and mistrust. Patients indicated they liked the tools user-friendly nature, the organized and comprehensive presentation of the subject matter, and the clarity of the videos. CONCLUSION The development process serves as an example of operationalizing best practice approaches and highlights the value of a multi-disciplinary team to develop a theory-based, sophisticated tool that patients found useful in their decision making process. Practice implications Best practice approaches can be addressed and are important to ensure evidence-based tools that are of value to patients and supports the usefulness of a process map in the development of e-health tools.

Attitudinal barriers to participation in oncology clinical trials: factor analysis and correlates of barriers

Patient participation in cancer clinical trials is low. Little is known about attitudinal barriers to participation, particularly among patients who may be offered a trial during an imminent initial oncology consult. The aims of the present study were to confirm the presence of proposed subscales of a recently developed cancer clinical trial attitudinal barriers measure, describe the most common cancer clinical trials attitudinal barriers, and evaluate socio-demographic, medical and financial factors associated with attitudinal barriers. A total of 1256 patients completed a survey assessing demographic factors, perceived financial burden, prior trial participation and attitudinal barriers to clinical trials participation. Results of a factor analysis did not confirm the presence of the proposed four attitudinal barriers subscale/factors. Rather, a single factor represented the best fit to the data. The most highly-rated barriers were fear of side-effects, worry about health insurance and efficacy concerns. Results suggested that less educated patients, patients with non-metastatic disease, patients with no previous oncology clinical trial participation, and patients reporting greater perceived financial burden from cancer care were associated with higher barriers. These patients may need extra attention in terms of decisional support. Overall, patients with fewer personal resources (education, financial issues) report more attitudinal barriers and should be targeted for additional decisional support.

Knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy as predictors of preparedness for oncology clinical trials: a mediational model.

Objective. This study used the Ottawa Decision Support Framework to evaluate a model examining associations between clinical trial knowledge, attitudinal barriers to participating in clinical trials, clinical trial self-efficacy, and clinical trial preparedness among 1256 cancer patients seen for their first outpatient consultation at a cancer center. As an exploratory aim, moderator effects for gender, race/ethnicity, education, and metastatic status on associations in the model were evaluated. Methods . Patients completed measures of cancer clinical trial knowledge, attitudinal barriers, self-efficacy, and preparedness. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to evaluate whether self-efficacy mediated the association between knowledge and barriers with preparedness. Results . The SEM explained 26% of the variance in cancer clinical trial preparedness. Self-efficacy mediated the associations between attitudinal barriers and preparedness, but self-efficacy did not mediate the knowledge-preparedness relationship. Conclusions . Findings partially support the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and suggest that assessing patients’ level of self-efficacy may be just as important as evaluating their knowledge and attitudes about cancer clinical trials.