Informed consent for investigational chemotherapy: patients' and physicians' perceptions.

TLDR

A survey of 144 patients and 68 physicians at three cancer centers examined their perceptions of the consent procedure for investigational chemotherapy, conducted 1–3 weeks after the procedure. Patients remembered the consent process positively and largely depended on physicians’ guidance, yet 29% felt their participation was not encouraged; most accepted treatment due to trust, perceived benefit, and fear of disease progression, while nearly a quarter failed to recall the investigational nature and 69% reported the consent form had no influence, and physicians believed benefits outweighed risks but perceived many patients as less eager for details, avoiding seriousness, or passive, thereby limiting patient autonomy.

Abstract

One hundred forty-four patients and 68 physicians at three cancer centers were studied for their perceptions of the consent procedure, in which they participated one to three weeks earlier, for chemotherapy by one of 65 investigational protocols. Patients recalled the procedure positively and relied heavily on physician's advice. They felt most physicians wanted them to accept; 29% felt their participation in the decision was not encouraged. Primary reasons for accepting were trust in the physician, belief the treatment would help, and fear the disease (viewed as highly serious) would get worse without it. Nearly a fourth did not recall the information given that treatment was investigational. The consent form played no role in decision-making for 69%. Physicians believed therapeutic benefits would exceed potential problems for most patients; they viewed 41% of the patients as less than eager for details of treatment, a third as avoiding the seriousness of the discussion, and a third as passive in decision-making. The perceptual set of both parties places inadvertent constraint on patients' autonomy in decision making.