Reflections on the opportunities and challenges of applying experience-based co-design (EBCD) to phase 1 clinical trials in oncology.
early‐phase clinical trial
experience‐based co‐design
oncology
Journal
Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy
ISSN: 1369-7625
Titre abrégé: Health Expect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815926
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2024
Aug 2024
Historique:
revised:
16
04
2024
received:
21
12
2023
accepted:
24
04
2024
medline:
28
6
2024
pubmed:
28
6
2024
entrez:
28
6
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) is a multi-stage participatory action research process which was developed originally to increase patient involvement in service improvement initiatives. This viewpoint article serves as a reflection on the researchers' experiences, focusing on the application and feasibility of participatory approaches, particularly co-design, in the specific context of early-phase clinical trials. We reflect on the opportunities and challenges of applying EBCD in a new context of early-phase clinical trials in oncology where experimental treatments are increasingly perceived as a therapeutic option and, in certain instances, their efficacy may lead to accelerated approval facilitating a swifter integration into standard care. We propose that the opportunity of applying EBCD in such trials lies in improving the delivery of person-centered care, care coordination, and support during the transition from experimental to standard care. Three potential challenges when applying EBCD in early-phase clinical trials are discussed related to: the need for standardization in trial processes; planning EBCD in a context of high uncertainty; and vulnerability of patient populations. Integrating EBCD into early-phase oncology trials presents an opportunity to enhance person-centered care and can lead to simultaneous improvements in care processes and therapeutic development. This article has been developed with the collaboration of a patient partner who serves on the advisory board of our ongoing EBCD study in early clinical trials.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) is a multi-stage participatory action research process which was developed originally to increase patient involvement in service improvement initiatives. This viewpoint article serves as a reflection on the researchers' experiences, focusing on the application and feasibility of participatory approaches, particularly co-design, in the specific context of early-phase clinical trials.
METHODS
METHODS
We reflect on the opportunities and challenges of applying EBCD in a new context of early-phase clinical trials in oncology where experimental treatments are increasingly perceived as a therapeutic option and, in certain instances, their efficacy may lead to accelerated approval facilitating a swifter integration into standard care.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We propose that the opportunity of applying EBCD in such trials lies in improving the delivery of person-centered care, care coordination, and support during the transition from experimental to standard care. Three potential challenges when applying EBCD in early-phase clinical trials are discussed related to: the need for standardization in trial processes; planning EBCD in a context of high uncertainty; and vulnerability of patient populations.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Integrating EBCD into early-phase oncology trials presents an opportunity to enhance person-centered care and can lead to simultaneous improvements in care processes and therapeutic development.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION
UNASSIGNED
This article has been developed with the collaboration of a patient partner who serves on the advisory board of our ongoing EBCD study in early clinical trials.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e14068Subventions
Organisme : ISREC Foundation
Organisme : Swiss Cancer Research Foundation
ID : KFS-5649-08-2022
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Robert G, Locock L, Williams O, Cornwell J, Donetto S, Goodrich J. Co‐producing and co‐designing. In: Mary D‐W, Graham M, eds. Elements of Improving Quality and Safety in Healthcare. Cambridge University Press; 2022:9‐13. doi:10.1017/9781009237024
Bate P, Robert G. Bringing User Experience to Healthcare Improvement: The Concepts, Methods and Practices of Experience‐Based Design. Radcliffe Publishing; 2007.
Donetto S, Pierri P, Tsianakas V, Robert G. Experience‐based co‐design and healthcare improvement: realizing participatory design in the public sector. Des J. 2015;18(2):227‐248. doi:10.2752/175630615X14212498964312
Moser A, Melchior I, Veenstra M, Stoffers E, Derks E, Jie KS. Improving the experience of older people with colorectal and breast cancer in patient‐centred cancer care pathways using experience‐based co‐design. Health Expect. 2021;24(2):478‐490. doi:10.1111/hex.13189
Green T, Bonner A, Teleni L, et al. Use and reporting of experience‐based codesign studies in the healthcare setting: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29(1):64‐76. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009570
Tanay MAL, Armes J, Oakley C, et al. Co‐designing a behavioural intervention for reducing the impact of chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy symptoms: an evidence‐ and theory‐driven approach. Eur J Cancer Care. 2022;31(6):e13671. doi:10.1111/ecc.13671
Tsianakas V, Robert G, Richardson A, et al. Enhancing the experience of carers in the chemotherapy outpatient setting: an exploratory randomised controlled trial to test impact, acceptability and feasibility of a complex intervention co‐designed by carers and staff. Supp Care Cancer. 2015;23(10):3069‐3080. doi:10.1007/s00520-015-2677-x
Postel‐Vinay S, Aspeslagh S, Lanoy E, Robert C, Soria JC, Marabelle A. Challenges of phase 1 clinical trials evaluating immune checkpoint‐targeted antibodies. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(2):214‐224. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv550
Adashek JJ, LoRusso PM, Hong DS, Kurzrock R. Phase I trials as valid therapeutic options for patients with cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019;16(12):773‐778. doi:10.1038/s41571-019-0262-9
Italiano A. Participation in phase 1 trials for patients with cancer. Lancet. 2022;400(10351):473‐475. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01533-1
Paliard X, Rixe O. Precision oncology for cancer immunotherapies in early‐phase clinical trials. Target Oncol. 2019;14(6):631‐637. doi:10.1007/s11523-019-00678-w
Farber S. Chemotherapy in the treatment of leukemia and Wilms' tumor. JAMA. 1966;198(8):826‐836. doi:10.1001/jama.1966.03110210076025
Meyers FJ, Linder J, Beckett L, Christensen S, Blais J, Gandara DR. Simultaneous care: a model approach to the perceived conflict between investigational therapy and palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2004;28(6):548‐556. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.03.002
Cambrosio A, Keating P, Vignola‐Gagné E, Besle S, Bourret P. Extending experimentation: oncology's fading boundary between research and care. New Genet Soc. 2018;37(3):207‐226. doi:10.1080/14636778.2018.1487281
Zettler M, Basch E, Nabhan C. Surrogate end points and patient‐reported outcomes for novel oncology drugs approved between 2011 and 2017. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(9):1358. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1760
Little P, Everitt H, Williamson I, et al. Observational study of effect of patient centredness and positive approach on outcomes of general practice consultations. BMJ. 2001;323(7318):908‐911. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7318.908
Basch E, Yap C. Patient‐reported outcomes for tolerability assessment in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(8):943‐944. doi:10.1093/jnci/djab017
Ferrell BR, Chung V, Koczywas M, et al. Palliative care and phase 1 trials: intervention to improve quality of life and provide education. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2017;21(4):473‐479. doi:10.1188/17.CJON.473-479
Treasure M, Daly B, Cao S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of structured palliative care versus standard supportive care for patients enrolled in phase 1 clinical trials. Cancer Med. 2021;10(13):4312‐4321. doi:10.1002/cam4.3971
Bell JAH, Balneaves LG. Cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation: an integrative review with implications for patients' relational autonomy. Supp Care Cancer. 2015;23(4):1169‐1196. doi:10.1007/s00520-014-2581-9
Blackwell RWé, Lowton K, Robert G, Grudzen C, Grocott P. Using experience‐based co‐design with older patients, their families and staff to improve palliative care experiences in the emergency department: a reflective critique on the process and outcomes. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;68:83‐94. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.01.002
Jenkins V, Solis‐Trapala I, Langridge C, Catt S, Talbot DC, Fallowfield LJ. What oncologists believe they said and what patients believe they heard: an analysis of phase I trial discussions. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(1):61‐68. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.30.0814
Bittlinger M, Bicer S, Peppercorn J, Kimmelman J. Ethical considerations for phase I trials in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:3474‐3488. doi:10.1200/JCO.21.02125
Rezash V, Reed J, Gedeon B, et al. Who needs what? erceptions of patients and caregivers in oncology phase 1 trials. J Patient Exp. 2020;7(1):27‐33. doi:10.1177/2374373519830743
Sawyer C, Preston L, Taylor S, et al. Oncology patients' experiences in experimental medicine cancer trials: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(10):e047813. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047813
Piper D, Iedema R, Gray J, Verma R, Holmes L, Manning N. Utilizing experience‐based co‐design to improve the experience of patients accessing emergency departments in New South Wales public hospitals: an evaluation study. Health Serv Manage Res. 2012;25(4):162‐172. doi:10.1177/0951484812474247
Ulrich CM, Grady C. Time for advance care planning discussions during transitions in care in cancer clinical trials. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(4):459‐460. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6872
Ulrich CM, Knafl K, Foxwell AM, et al. Experiences of patients after withdrawal from cancer clinical trials. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(8):e2120052. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20052
Locock L, Robert G, Boaz A, et al. Testing accelerated experience‐based co‐design: a qualitative study of using a national archive of patient experience narrative interviews to promote rapid patient‐centred service improvement. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2014;2(4):1‐122. doi:10.3310/hsdr02040
Marks HM. The Progress of Experiment: Science and Therapeutic Reform in the United States. Cambridge University Press; 2000:1900‐1990.
Robert G. Participatory action research: using experience‐based co‐design to improve the quality of healthcare services. In: Sue Z, ed. Understanding and Using Health Experiences. Oxford University Press; 2013: 138‐149 doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665372.003.0014
Donetto S, Jones F, Clarke DJ, et al. Exploring liminality in the co‐design of rehabilitation environments: the case of one acute stroke unit. Health Place. 2021;72:102695. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2021.102695
Chow SC, Liu JP. Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials: Concepts and Methodologies. 3rd ed. Wiley; 2013.
Karavasilis V, Digue L, Arkenau T, et al. Identification of factors limiting patient recruitment into phase I trials: a study from the Royal Marsden Hospital. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(7):978‐982. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.040
Finlay E, Lu HL, Henderson H, O'Dwyer PJ, Casarett DJ. Do phase 1 patients have greater needs for palliative care compared with other cancer patients? Cancer. 2009;115(2):446‐453. doi:10.1002/cncr.24025
Kessler ER, Moss A, Eckhardt SG, et al. Distress among caregivers of phase I trial participants: a cross‐sectional study. Supp Care Cancer. 2014;22(12):3331‐3340. doi:10.1007/s00520-014-2380-3
Paidipati CP, Foxwell AM, Mooney‐Doyle K, Tiller D, Pinto‐Martin J, Ulrich CM. Caregiver perspectives on the benefits, burdens, and moral distress of participation in cancer clinical trials. J Fam Nurs. 2023;29(1):89‐98. doi:10.1177/10748407221098187
Mulvale G, Moll S, Miatello A, et al. Codesigning health and other public services with vulnerable and disadvantaged populations: insights from an international collaboration. Health Expect. 2019;22(3):284‐297. doi:10.1111/hex.12864