Background
Methods
Recruitment and procedure
QUEST acceptors (n = 17) | QUEST decliners (n = 10) | Total (n = 27) | |
---|---|---|---|
Age, mean (sd) | 53.2 (9.28) | 54.7 (10.22) | 53.7 (9.37) |
Ethnicity | |||
White British | 15 | 10 | 25 |
White Irish | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Black African | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Education, n (%) | |||
Degree | 8 (47) | 5 (50) | 13 (48) |
Continued after minimum school-leaving age | 2 (12) | 3 (30) | 5 (19) |
Did not continue after minimum school-leaving age | 7 (41) | 2 (20) | 9 (33) |
Marital status, n (%) | |||
Single | 3 (18) | 0 | 3 (11) |
Married/living together | 13 (76) | 6 (60) | 19 (70) |
Separated/divorced | 1 (6) | 3 (30) | 4 (15) |
Widowed | 0 (0) | 1(10) | 1 (4) |
Dependent children, n (%) | 9 (53) | 3 (30) | 12 (44) |
Data analysis
Results
Altruism was initially expressed by both acceptors and decliners
[On altruism]
My reaction was if this is going to help other people who’ve got cancer I’m happy to do that, my primary thought. I think it depends on one’s personality and character as to would view in other people but I really like to do that so my main thing wasn’t actually of me, it was helping other people because it was such a shock when I found out I’d got it [breast cancer]. It was so shocking. I had no idea, not a smoker, not a drinker or anything. I was just so shocked and I thought, ‘Gosh if any information they can glean from me is going to help people’.
|
[On randomisation]
…obviously because of them randomising it, it’s neutral, isn’t it in a way. Whereas if one makes the choice people might always go for a certain option which then makes it a bit more complicated… I presume it’s [randomisation] giving more of a balanced view of what treatments are administered so that you can get a clearer picture of what the benefits are and facts and things like that.
|
Trial acceptor, full understanding of randomisation (participant 7) |
[On altruism]
I wasn’t thinking of it so much for myself [potential trial benefits] but I think any diagnosis of a major illness changes your outlook anyway and it is such a life-changing thing that anything that I felt I could do to contribute to things being better for anyone in the future I just thought it was a good opportunity to do that and it wasn’t anything that was going to jeopardise my treatment or any outcome for me in any way but at least I thought it wouldn’t.
|
[On randomisation]
…the computer would choose which option and it was because that’s the fairest way to do the research so it’s not sort of weighted by any other considerations..
|
Trial acceptor, full understanding of randomisation (participant 8) |
[On altruism]
For me, initially taking part in trials, it was simply that I worked in clinical trials and obviously working in it, it’s something I believe in and it was something I wanted to help with so for me that was why I wanted to be involved in some of them.
|
[On randomisation]
[Researchers used randomisation] So that the conclusions that you draw at the end of it are not influenced by any preconceived ideas from the knowledge of which streams you are randomised into.
|
Trial decliner, full understanding of randomisation (participant 25) |
[On altruism]
Well to be honest I didn’t mind because I thought if it helps other people that I didn’t mind and I thought I agreed to take part in another study where they were taking my blood as well and stuff.
|
[On randomisation]
I was aware that the computer, this is how I was made to think it was whether it was right or wrong, that the computer would decide on my surgery. And I was kind of like ooh how… it doesn’t know me, do you know what I mean? Obviously, in retrospect, thinking about it all the relevant information would have been inputted into that computer, I know that now, but at the time it was no, it’s not a person. […] it wasn’t explained to me if I could disagree with the computer.
|
Trial decliner, did not fully understand randomisation (participant 22) |
Personal needs took precedence in decliners
[Own need]
I don’t know, it’s just my personality thing, I’m just aware that research needs to be done, […] and I just thought ‘Oh God I ought to do it’ and then I thought ‘No, absolutely not, it’s not for me’. […] to be honest it’s the control thing because when you’re diagnosed you just feel like your life’s on hold. People are saying, ‘Can you come and do this that and the other,’ and you think, ‘Well I don’t know. I don’t know when my operation is going to be. I don’t know when the tests are going to be. I don’t even know if I’ll be able to go out at work or what.’ You’ve got no control over anything. Then to not even have any control over the process, the procedure it just seemed like yet another decision that I didn’t have really.
|
[On randomisation]
That if I was happy to either have an implant, or not and then it would be randomly decided whether I would get one or not. […] what happens is that your name goes in a hat more or less. […] it’s just because it makes it completely fair […]
|
Trial decliner, full understanding of randomisation (participant 19) |
[Own need]
I’m the kind of the person that’s happy to try to do things. I was a blood donor for years. I’m happy to do it voluntarily but it’s not so much that when you’re given the information you are always thinking, it sounds selfish, but, ‘What will I get out of this?’ As much as, ‘What can I give to them?’ It’s nice if you can get a little bit out of it for yourself […]
|
[On randomisation]
It’s like being in a lottery, isn’t it? […] When you’re in hospital you want to feel that you’re not being treated as a lottery number, you’re being treated as an individual. It’s important because then you feel that your best interests are at heart […] doing something randomly you haven’t got the researchers, they’re not choosing which patients to use it’s the randomisation so therefore you can be going from a wider spectrum of people instead of thinking, ‘Oh well I’m going to do this study and I’ll just pick out blonde-haired blue-eyed 30-year-olds,’ or, ‘I’ll pick her because I like the colour of her hair.’ You’ve got no input at all as to why you’re picking somebody. It’s completely random and that, to me, is for a study I can understand it, but as a patient you don’t like to feel you’re in a lottery.
|
Trial decliner, did not fully understand randomisation (participant 27) |
[Own need and randomisation]
I didn’t mind being asked, I was quite happy to go into the trial for that reason, because it’s research and it’s proving a point and hopefully all for the benefit of mankind, that didn’t worry me. Randomised I didn’t think I really understood what they meant by randomised until it was explained to me that you get whatever treatment we give you type thing, as in the different flaps that are on offer for rebuilding your boob and all that jazz. But as soon as they said implant I baulked at implant because I didn’t want an implant.
|
Trial decliner, understood rationale for but not process of randomisation (participant 16) |
Pure altruism (true selflessness) in an acceptor
[On her preference]
I said okay I want to finish this and get out of this mess. Sometimes that’s how I say things because that’s how I think, not say it, but that’s how I think. So as a patient you always feel to finish it quickly and just go on with your life. It doesn’t work like that. The doctors know more about us, about what we are going through than ourselves. […]
|
[On randomisation]
The computer makes the decision I say okay I don’t make too much like oh no I just say this is what I want, I don’t want to go to implant thingy but if that’s what they choose, the doctors know more than me so I will go ahead with the decision. […] Yes and they [doctors] said because in my case because they know what they are saying and they know what happens I don’t know. So if they say this is the best for you so I will go ahead with that.
|
Trial acceptor, did not fully understand randomisation (participant 9) |
‘Hypothetical altruism’ (selfless behaviour stated but not put to the test) amongst acceptors
[Preference]
Was to have as much surgery done in one go really to be honest […] because from being diagnosed, the whole treatment pathway it’s really lengthy, everyone can appreciate that. In my mind delaying the reconstruction would have just lengthened that even more […] From what I remember, I could’ve pulled out at any time from the trial anyway. I wouldn’t have wanted to and I don’t think I would have done, but I was fully aware that I could pull out at any time which was fair and I did appreciate that.
|
[On randomisation]
…people can be put into a system and you were randomly picked [for different surgical options] from what I believe…. It makes it a little bit more fair doesn’t it? Hopefully you get a completely different cross-section of ladies taking part, following each process really, but you’re not getting say for example, all the ladies my age doing it one way and then all the ladies of an older age doing it the other way, then of course it’s not a fair representation is it of everybody involved.
|
Trial acceptor, full understanding of randomisation (participant 15) |
Participant:
I was told from very early on if you have a strong view and it comes back with what you don’t want you can opt out of the trial at any time […] I didn’t want an implant because I looked further into possible post-op complications and things and when it came back it was a non-implant so that was fine. I actually in the couple of days, because I went, I think it was the Thursday, and they put me in for the trial and then the randomisation came back on the Monday, so over the weekend I was thinking please don’t let it be an implant, please don’t let it be an implant. Anyway it came back and it wasn’t an implant so that was fine.
|
Interviewer:
What do you think you would have done if it had come back with the other option?
|
Participant:
I probably would have gone with it anyway because I absolutely trust the team that are looking after me. I think that was the most important thing that you trust the team that are caring for you and my surgeon was absolutely adamant that both outcomes would be as good.
|
[On randomisation]
In order to be able to be on the trial I had to be suitable for either a reconstruction with an implant or without an implant … and the randomisation happened in that no one person decided, a computer spit it out or somebody spit it out and it meant that it wasn’t down to my choice […] Nobody chose, it was a computer or a person picking a name out of a hat that chose rather than the surgeon and stuff so that meant that my experience wasn’t influenced by anybody.
|
Trial acceptor, full understanding of randomisation (participant 13) |
Participant:
[…] It wouldn’t make no difference about the trials, if I was randomised for a different type and I didn’t like it, she [the nurse] said that’s no problem, she said you don’t have to go on the trials but I agreed in the end. I thought about it and I agreed. I thought yes it’s a better outcome and for people to understand more about breast cancer.
|
Interviewer:
So how do you think you would have felt if you would have been randomised just to have no implant [less preferred option]?
|
Participant:
I wouldn’t have minded. I think after going through the operation and going through the cancer, I didn’t mind either way as long as the cancer was gone and I was a shape, I was still a woman with my own flesh there somewhere […]
|
[On randomisation]
I thought that the computer put in my details and then have a look through it all and see what is best for me and when I thought about it afterwards they said I could change my mind at any time, I didn’t have to go through with what the computer picked but thinking about it, and I thought yes I think I would like to go along with it.
|
Trial acceptor, did not fully understand randomisation (participant 11) |
Interviewer:
So knowing that you had this preference not to have an implant, how did you feel about being randomised then, knowing that you might have been offered the other option?
|
Participant:
Well, after speaking to [surgeon], he did say that both, whichever one they decided to do, and I trust that man absolutely, that it would be perfect for me.
|
Interviewer:
So if you had been randomised to have an implant, you would have been happy to go along with that?
|
Participant:
Yes.
|
[On randomisation]
I think they [the Quest people] just looked at everything, what I was like, all my notes and everything and then decided. […] Well, the Quest people. […] This is how I understood it, they wanted equal amounts of women to go for and against the two procedures.
|
Trial acceptor, did not fully understand randomisation (participant 12) |
Weak altruism amongst acceptors
[On randomisation and no preference]
[…] if you were suitable, you could be randomised, i.e. the computer would decide which operation you were having and the outcomes were both, I was explained that there were pros and cons to both and I was happy to have both of the surgeries and actually it was quite nice for me because I don’t think I could have decided […] obviously on the […] study makes it fairer. If they’d picked me to do something, it could’ve been for a reason, it could’ve been for something I said whereas letting a computer decide is completely random and it chooses what it likes based on nothing whatsoever.
|
Trial acceptor, full understanding of randomisation (participant 5) |
Conditional altruism (selflessness dependent on perceived personal benefits) amongst acceptors
[Choice made]
[…] as I say it’s the least I can do and also I feel quite chosen to be one and it’s helped me which you know I don’t know whether with QUEST when you set it up thought, oh they might feel a little comfort from this; my comfort is that I didn’t have to decide what I was having at a time when I was making decisions.
|
[On randomisation]
I know that that was okay and I could understand why they said you can’t choose the computer has to choose for you and I could see that, because you wouldn’t get the fair result would you if we all started to say “we’ve got to choose one”.
|
Trial acceptor, full understanding of randomisation (participant 1) |
[Choice made]
I think it was just having the choice made for me and as I say I thought well if any data or research that would be useful that would come out of it then if it helps other people later on down the line then I am quite happy to do that.
|
[On randomisation]
I think they are obviously trying to find which surgery is best for most people […] if you are in the position where you have got two options of surgery I think they are obviously, I thought they were trying to find out which was really best for patients in the long run, collecting data on the two different procedures because I suppose if a surgeon is choosing or a patient is choosing you could only get one type of surgery being done far more than the other and perhaps they want to find out, make it something a bit fairer really and see how patients respond to the different types of operation and surgery.
|
Trial acceptor, understood rationale for but not process of randomisation (participant 2) |
It was a positive for me, it was something I could do that was a positive from it all basically. I think lots of things that happen to you when you’re having surgery and going through this procedure, you’ve got no control over, but actually I could choose what I wanted to do. I could feel that there was some positive coming out of it whatever the outcome was for me, which was quite nice.
|
Trial acceptor, full understanding of randomisation (participant 5) |
Yes, I do actually because, like yourself ringing me now, because I thought someone would ring in a month and then three and so on. You're getting to know how I'm feeling to help other people. And, also, you're keeping checks on how we're doing which I think is a brilliant thing, more so than if I wasn't doing the QUEST.
|
Trial acceptor, did not fully understand randomisation (participant 12) |
I thought I’d get the best care because they’re [QUEST investigators] really interested in what you’ve got to say and how you feel and I thought well, this way and also that other women could benefit by it as well.
|
Trial acceptor, did not fully understand randomisation (participant 11) |
Sense of duty to take part
It seemed quite straightforward so they [healthcare team] were very, very good at the whole thing, and I just thought well, this is the least I can do you know, it wasn’t hard to decide.
|
Trial acceptor, full understanding of randomisation (participant 1) |
They’re important really [trials] because my treatment from start to finish has been influenced by other ladies going through similar trials, for all sorts of different reasons. Really, it was me putting my little bit back in for women in the future to be honest.
|
Trial acceptor, full understanding of randomisation (participant 15) |