Informed consent in cancer clinical care: Perspectives of healthcare professionals on information disclosure at a tertiary institution in Uganda

Rebecca Kampi; Clement Okello; Joseph Ochieng; Erisa Sabakaki Mwaka

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301586

. 2024 Apr 4;19(4):e0301586. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301586

Informed consent in cancer clinical care: Perspectives of healthcare professionals on information disclosure at a tertiary institution in Uganda

Rebecca Kampi ¹, Clement Okello ², Joseph Ochieng ¹, Erisa Sabakaki Mwaka ^1,^*

Editor: Luca Valera³

PMCID: PMC10994281 PMID: 38574007

Abstract

Introduction

While there have been several studies examining the understanding and quality of informed consent in clinical trials of cancer therapies, there is limited empirical research on health practitioners’ experiences on the informed consent process in cancer care, especially from low resource settings. This study explored health professionals’ perspectives on information disclosure during the consenting process in cancer care.

Methods

A qualitative descriptive approach was used to collect data. Face to face interviews were conducted with 10 purposively selected healthcare professionals who were actively involved in soliciting informed consent at a cancer treatment centre in Uganda. A thematic approach was used to interpret the results.

Results

There were five key themes, and these included information disclosure to patients; assessment of patients’ cancer awareness, treatment preferences and expectations; informed consent practices; barriers to optimal informed consent and information disclosure; and recommendations for improving the consenting process. All respondents appreciated the value of disclosing accurate information to patients to facilitate informed decision making. However, the informed consent process was deemed sub-optimal. Respondents asserted that patients should be the psychological wellbeing of patients should be protected by mentally preparing them before disclosing potentially distressing information. All healthcare professionals were appreciative of the central role the family plays in the consenting process.

Conclusion

Overall, informed consent practices were not ideal because of the several challenges. Inadequate time is devoted to information disclosure and patient education; there is lack of privacy; and informed consent documentation is poor. There is a need for significant improvement in informed consent practices and healthcare professional-patient communication.

Introduction

Informed consent is an ethical imperative before any medical procedure. Informed consent is premised in the ethical principle of autonomy that acknowledges a person’s right to hold views, to make choices, and to take actions based on his/her values and beliefs [1, 2]. Beauchamp and Childress suggested two different senses of informed consent. In the first sense, they define informed consent as "an individual’s autonomous authorisation of a medical intervention or of participation in research" [1]. In this sense, informed consent is considered to be an “autonomous authorisation” when a patient intentionally, voluntarily and with sufficient understanding authorises a physician to act. Autonomous authorisation is in direct contrast to the paternalistic approach of physicians who make independently conceived treatment decisions in the best interest of the patient [3]. In the second sense, informed consent refers to “conformity to the social rules of consent that require professionals to obtain legally or institutionally valid consent from patients or subjects before proceeding with diagnostic, therapeutic, or research procedures" [1]. In this case, physicians who obtain consent as an institutional obligation can and often fail to meet the ethical standard of the autonomy-based model. Autonomy-protecting rules may be difficult to implement. Therefore, physicians should not only evaluate institutional rules in terms of respect for autonomy and autonomous authorisation, but also in terms of the potential repercussions of imposing stringent requirements on institutions and professionals [1].

In cancer therapy, healthcare professionals should aim at a satisfactory informed consent process since care treatments profoundly impact on a patient’s health and quality of life [1, 4]. However, there are several factors that influence the consenting process in cancer care. Fluctuations in a patient’s clinical condition, symptom control, and receipt of prognostic information may affect a patient’s motivation to contribute to consent discussions [5]. Furthermore, people with cancer may experience intense emotional distress, bewilderment, and are often challenged with symptomatic disease and closeness to death [5]. This circumstance significantly impacts their support needs and personal relationships, psychological wellbeing, and presents challenges for patients and families during the consenting process. In some cultures, unpleasant facts about the prognosis of disease conditions are unwelcome and are better withheld [6–8]. Some patients may feel discomfort talking about death and dying, may have strong emotional responses, and others may be in denial of the diagnosis and prognosis [9]. Religion and spirituality have been reported to have positive impact on cancer care [10–12]. However, while religion may be a source of comfort and spiritual relief, it may also be used to support denial about cancer progression or support futile medical care at the end of life. These socio-cultural factors may impede a patient’s ability to engage in conversations and ability to ask relevant questions during the consenting process [9].

While there have been several studies examining the understanding and quality of informed consent in clinical trials of cancer therapies [13–17], there is limited empirical research on health practitioners’ experiences on the informed consent process in cancer care, especially from low resource settings. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first article to document informed consent practices in cancer care in Uganda. In Uganda, 34,008 new cases and 22,992 deaths due to cancer were registered in 2020 [18]; and there is only one health facility in the country that provides comprehensive cancer centre to a population of 45.7 millions [18]. It is also important to note that there is no organized national cancer screening program, and the cancer referral system is sub-optimal; as such, many patients are never referred and may never seek treatment [19, 20]. Cancer care is often delayed due to challenges such as lack of knowledge and awareness of clinical presentation of cancer, poor access to diagnostic and therapeutic services, stigma and financial constraints [21, 22]. Nakaganda et al. in a study that assessed the challenges faced by cancer patients in Uganda reported that 55% participants had limited knowledge about their disease and treatment, 41% were never counselled about the side effects of therapy, and 38% were not given instructions before initiating treatment [21]. It is evident from the above discussion that there is a glaring gap in the provision of health information to cancer patients. Furthermore, several studies have reported sub-optimal informed consent practices in clinical care in Uganda [23–27]. Given the sensitive nature of the information provided to cancer patients, particularly regarding prognosis, treatment options, the risks and effects of treatment, it is important to understand the perspective of health professionals on the consenting process for cancer care as a basis for further optimisation of the informed consent. This study therefore set out to explore the perspectives of healthcare professional on information disclosure during the informed consent process for cancer care.

Materials and methods

A qualitative descriptive approach was used to collect data on healthcare professionals’ experiences and perspectives on information disclosure during the consenting process for cancer clinical care at a Cancer Treatment Centre in Uganda, that will hereafter be referred to as The Centre. A qualitative descriptive approach provides a comprehensive summary and straight forward description of the phenomenon [28]. The Centre has several wards and specialized out-patient clinics. The Centre also has three regional service centres and offers specialized cancer care services. The Centre is a centre of excellence that with a mandate for cancer prevention and control, specialized care, research, and training. The Centre offers out-patient, in-patient, and outreach services. It also offers palliative and rehabilitation services. The Centre also has a comprehensive community cancer program that takes lead in cancer prevention through screening, health education, prevention, early detection, and access to the right treatment.

Participants

Participants included purposively selected healthcare professionals based on their role in obtaining informed consent for clinical care in the out-patient clinics at The Centre. All participants routinely participated in obtaining informed consent for clinical care in the out-patient clinics at The Centre. This study focused on healthcare professionals because several studies have reported challenges to the informed consent process in clinical care in Uganda, with healthcare professionals being the main culprits [23–27].

Data collection

Ten key informant interviews were conducted between September 2019 to May 2020 by a team of three researchers that included a bioethicist (ESM), a master of bioethics graduate student (RK) and a physician (CO). Prospective participants were physically approached, given a brief description of the study and a convenient appointment made. All the individuals approached participated in the study. Face to face Interviews were conducted in a private quiet room at The Centre after obtaining written informed consent. Prior to commencing the study, the research team was trained on the protocol to ensure that they internalized and understood the study well. Data were collected using a semi-structured key informant interview guide that was developed by ESM and RK, and consisted of open-ended questions on what information is disclosed to patients; how the information is disclosed; informed consent practices; challenges to the consenting process; and recommendations for improving the informed consent process for cancer care. The interview guide was pre-tested on three healthcare professional at another hospital and revised prior to the full data collection process. A team of three researchers (RK, ESM and CO), conducted all interviews to ensure consistency. All interviews were conducted in English, audio recorded with permission from respondents alongside detailed note taking, and later transcribed verbatim. Preliminary data analysis was performed after five interviews and the codes identified. Analysis was repeated after the eighth interview and there were no new codes emerging from the interviews. We conducted two more interviews to ensure that data saturation had been achieve [29]. Transcripts were cleaned before the analytical process. On average, interviews lasted between 45–60 minutes. Debriefing meetings were held by the research team at the end of each interview to ensure completeness and to also review preliminary perspectives that had arisen.

Data management and analysis

Data analysis was conducted continuously throughout the study using a thematic approach [30, 31]. Two of the authors (RK and ESM) then developed a codebook and coding framework. Themes were then generated both deductively, based on our prior analytic framework derived from the literature on informed consent for clinical care, as represented in the interview guide (see S2 File); and inductively, by considering the new themes that emerged from the text. Then RK, ESM, CI and JO examined the themes for patterns until consensus was achieved on the final themes after several iterative discussions. Codes and themes were organized using NVivo 12 software (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2014). The authors identified quotes in the respondents’ transcripts that were congruent with the overarching themes. Three transcripts were returned to interviewees to check for accuracy of transcription [32]. The authors had a well-established relationship. RK is a female and has a Master of Health Science in Bioethics but was a graduate student at the time of the study. This manuscript is part of her master’s dissertation. ESM (Master of Social Science in Health Research Ethics, PhD) and JO (Master of Health Sciences in Bioethics) are male practicing bioethicists and faculty members of the International Health Research Ethics Training program at Makerere University; and CO (Master of Medicine) is a male haematologist. ESM, and JO were mentors and academic supervisors to RK.

Ethical considerations

Ethics approval was obtained from the Makerere University School of Biomedical Sciences Higher Degrees and Research Ethics Committee (SBSHDREC-675). This study was conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki (2013). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the interviews. Data was kept securely, and all recordings and transcripts were de-identified, assigned special codes and stored on a password-protected computer. No participant identifying information was published.

Results

Ten healthcare professionals participated in this study as shown in Table 1. They included four doctors, four nurses, a social worker, and a health educator.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics.

Sex	Male	5
	Female	5
Occupation	Nurse	4
	Doctor	4
	Social worker	1
	Health educator	1

Open in a new tab

Findings are summarized under five themes (Table 2).

Table 2. Themes and key findings.

Themes	Key findings	Quotes
1. Information disclosure to patients	• Patients have a right to information. • Adequate information facilitates informed decision making • Use of decisional aids • Withholding of information • The need for veracity • Breaking of bad news • Delegation of informed consent administration	We try as much as possible to open up and also tell them what we expect them to do, one of the things we tell them is we really want to do the investigations and we tell them the plan of how they should handle their treatment when they get to initially start on it. We tell them about the frequency of the routine clinic appointments [. . .] (UCI 04) When you have a very terminally ill patient, or very advanced and you gauge that his or her mental health is not adequate to take in this information [. . .] or giving the information could be more harmful than of benefit to the patient, sometimes you may defer that information. First manage some symptoms when stronger; we bring out the topic on prognosis. But the disadvantage also is that there is delay in taking critical decisions (UCI 06). Yeah, just understanding the principles of breaking bad news you have to know how much information you give at a go. . . we know that if you give them too much information, they will only hear the diagnosis and they will not comprehend to the rest (UCI 10).
2. Assessment of patients’ cancer awareness, treatment preferences and expectations	• Assessment of prior knowledge • Patients’ expectations and preferences	At the first encounter we want to find out how much that person knows about the condition to guide our conversation. . . and then what are their expectations from care. Once we know that then we can know how to communicate further (UCI 10).
3. Informed consent practices	• Disclosure of intricate information should be done by doctors. • Poor informed consent documentation • Involvement of patients and their families in decision making	Even myself I may not know which procedure. . . so what is asked from patients is verbal consent. . .and many times its probably more of one sided like; we are going to do this procedure […] (UCI-10). Normally this informed consent that is obtained is not cancer specific it is for general-purpose treatment. When opening a file, there is a general sheet that is not cancer specific. . . . (UCI 06). We do family conferences in cancer treatment especially when we realize that the patient is having challenges [. . .] We prefer to bring a bigger family and try to talk about the same thing and may be trying to find out why the patient is declining in receiving whatever we give the patient. (UCI 05)
4. Barriers to optimal informed consent and information disclosure	• Patients are not given enough time to ask questions and understand • Limited knowledge of healthcare providers on cancer • Bad attitude and poor communication skills of some healthcare professionals • Language barriers • Lack of privacy	Time is a challenge because you’re meant to give a patient time to make an informed decision, they don’t even have to sign on that day. They can even go and come back on another day but here it is the reverse because you open the file on that day so they make an informed decision, so I think it’s mainly time (UCI 05). Giving information needs time, the time the doctor spends with the patient is so short that patients cannot understand. Communication needs time but the time we have to communicate with patients is minimal (UCI 09). There are no policy guidelines on how to give informed consent to cancer patients, when, by who and to who as well as its implication (UCI 09). Especially if they communicate a preference which is against the health care providers decision for example, when they say I don’t want radiotherapy then the person is offended and says you go home. So sometimes it happens (UCI 10).
5. Recommendations for improving the consenting process for cancer care.	• Training of healthcare professionals and continuing medical education • Developing of appropriate and detailed informed consent documents, and standard operating procedures • Improvement of physical infrastructure • Involvement of patients in decision-making	[…] the personnel need to have training” (UCI 02) I think there must be a little revision on the policy or guidelines of consent because its’ like we are using the 1900 agreement, things have changed a lot. There must be a policy which caters for the participation of the clients in the informed consent [. . .] need to study the practicability of the current consent system and whether it meets the criteria of consent. (UCI 09) They have to improve on materials and have to provide facilities or rooms where you can have discussions like that like here ideally, we need to have some chairs here, more space (UCI 08).

Open in a new tab

Information disclosure to patients

Information disclosure and comprehension is core to valid informed consent; and this is critical when dealing with patients with life-threatening disease conditions like cancer.

Most respondents appreciated the fact that patients have a right to information relevant to their disease. They indicated that disclosure of adequate relevant information facilitates proper decision making in medical care.

It can help them to make good decisions. In some instances when you lack specific services… [It] helps when they have the capacity to go to another hospital or outside like if someone wants a bone marrow transplant […] (UCI 08).

The use of decisional aids was deemed important in enhancing patient understanding. Respondents said that they use various information, education, and communication (IEC) materials to deliver information to patients including flip charts, cancer specific booklets and information leaflets, illustrative diagrams, and several others. However, one nurse pointed out that IEC materials are insufficient and healthcare professionals seldom utilize them.

Patients’ information on cancer or taking care of a cancer patient is available. They may be in books, some are in leaflets, but they are very inadequate, and they are not frequently being used. (UCI 04)

Some respondents mentioned that at times they withhold or delay disclosure of vital information to patients they feel are mentally unstable or may not be in position to understand. They said that occasionally, withholding information is done at the behest of patients’ family members. Withholding information was reportedly aimed at protecting patients’ psychosocial wellbeing, give them hope, and encourage adherence to treatment.

There are health professionals that believe that if you give information, you destroy the patients’ hope so they stop you and say you [may] discourage our patients. (UCI 10)

Another respondent noted that occasionally doctors use deception when managing cancer patients to protect their wellbeing and ensure adherence to treatment.

I have experienced some doctors who are trapped between saying the truth and lying to the patient …because this doctor now doesn’t want to tell this patient that my dear this will not help you […] Lies are happening. (UCI 09)

On the other hand, two respondents emphasized the need for veracity. They pointed out that truth telling was key to building trust and confidence in the medical team. They also emphasized the importance of assessing a patient’s readiness to receive bad news. They contended that patients should first be mentally prepared before communicating potentially distressing information, as stated in this quote.

I think it’s not ideal for every patient to get their information when mentally not stable […] because there are instances where people are given information and that’s when they stop talking and they die. (UCI 08)

Assessment of patients’ cancer awareness, treatment preferences and expectations

It is important to assess patients’ awareness, prior knowledge, and perceptions of cancer during the informed consent process. Respondents indicated that they try to obtain as much baseline information from patients as possible.

…. we want to find out how much that person knows about the condition […] this guides our conversation and the information we give subsequently. How much do they know about the condition and then what are their expectations from care? Once we know that then we can know how to communicate further. (UCI 10)

Doctors reported that they inquire about the patient’s health condition, past medical and treatment history, beliefs and perceptions of cancer, and treatment expectations. However, some respondents noted that by the time patients present to The Centre, they have already received medical care from several service providers including traditional healers, who unfortunately misguide them. Patients were also reported to receive a lot of conflicting information from the community that ends up confusing them.

90% of the cancer patients who come here have been elsewhere and that has implications. The first one is financial because they have spent a lot of money. Secondly, they have a lot of information which they have been given. Thirdly, patients have been given different concoctions as well as trying to get remedies either to their pain or swelling or to whatever problem they have. So, I think it is very important when you come, we try to know your beliefs. (UCI 05)

Informed consent practices

Overall, all respondents admitted that the consenting practices at The Centre were not ideal. They noted that whereas disclosure of intricate information and treatment planning is supposed to be done by “senior doctors”, this responsibility is usually delegated to junior doctors, nurses, counsellors, and the palliative care team. In some cases, even record clerks participate in soliciting consent.

The records personnel, they are the ones who make them sign…But I don’t know how they delegate duties. (UCI 02)

Most respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the way informed consent is documented at The Centre. They reported that the informed consent forms used, particularly for admission and clinical care, are deficient, not specific to cancer and are devoid of detail. They noted that patients are requested to sign one general consent form at admission irrespective of the procedures to be undertaken.

I don’t know if they really understand but I think the blanket informed consent that we use is not enough because we make them sign in the beginning that they will accept all the treatment given and all the procedures and that is it but even it’s a blanket consent. (UCI 10)

It was also established that patients just give verbal consent for medical procedures, some of which are complex and invasive.

Respondents pointed out that patients are usually not given the chance to voice their opinions or ask questions, they just must accept what the clinician decides for them. However, a doctor noted that patients are increasingly advocating for more active involvement in decision-making for issues concerning their medical care.

People’s autonomy is very dominant in ethics, but things have changed […] In the past there was this holistic approach that would be sort of paternalistic, but patients started arguing. How do you know that it is the best for me? I have a right to make my decision to determine what is best for me. (UCI 10)

Respondents acknowledged the need to involve patients in meaningful dialogue during the consenting process, and the need to consider patient preferences. However, they noted that oftentimes accommodating patients’ preferences is difficult.

I think there is room for negotiation. However, the challenge with cancer treatment is for each cancer you have a protocol. So, the negotiation may be that you have breast cancer if you have stage one and stage 2 the protocol is ABCD. Do you agree to follow ABCD? Then I will tell you depending on [the patient’s] response, if we follow ABCD our chances are going to be better …. but it is your choice if you want to receive treatment it solely depends on you. (UCI 05)

All respondents appreciated the role of the family in the care of people living with cancer. Three respondents indicated that it is important to involve family members in the decision-making process because caring for cancer patients requires a multidisciplinary approach. A doctor reported that family conferences are usually convened to make important decisions regarding patients’ treatment, especially for the very sick and the terminally ill. Another doctor however noted that at times, the treatment preferences of the family may diverge from the patient’s wishes.

Family resistance is a big factor which may interfere with patients’ treatment. They want to know, like they want to override the patient […] In that case we normally take the patients decision […] (UCI 06)

All doctors reported that there were major weaknesses in the documentation of informed consent. They complained about the poorly designed informed consent forms.

I think maybe the limitations are that maybe we don’t have [consent] forms where patients can sign for particular procedures […] so probably we do blanket consent. (UCI 10)

Barriers to optimal information disclosure during the informed consent process

Several barriers to optimal informed consent were identified. Most respondent conceded that they had challenges with information disclosure because of the heavy patient load, limited space, lack of manpower and lack of time. All doctors agreed that patients are not given adequate time, as such, information disclosure is at times inadequate.

Adequacy of information is a limitation on our part. We are not able to go through the full depth of the information due to big patient numbers […] and we feel the clinicians are not enough. The number of cancer patient cases have gone up to about three times while the number of health workers has also gone up, but not as high as the patient number so there are still gaps. (UCI 06)

Giving information needs time, the time the doctor spends with the patient is so short that patients cannot understand. Communication needs time but the time we have to communicate with patients is minimal. (UCI 09)

Respondents observed that some of the healthcare professionals that obtain informed consent have insufficient knowledge on cancer, so they are not in position to offer detailed explanation to patients. They attributed this to poor training, allocating roles to unqualified peoples and the lack of standard operating procedures for obtaining informed consent.

There are no policy guidelines on how to give informed consent to cancer patients, when, by who and to who as well as its implication. (UCI 09)

Another perceived barrier to optimal informed consent is the bad attitude of some healthcare professionals. Respondents reported that some healthcare providers are rude and unfriendly, as such, patients are usually afraid of opening up, and asking questions. One respondent reported that patients are repulsed by this negative attitude.

I have heard about patients who are like; oh no! I don’t want to be seen by that specific person he doesn’t explain well for me to understand […] (UCI 05)

Furthermore, some healthcare professionals reportedly do not respect patients’ preferences; they take offence when patients make suggestions that are contrary to their position.

Especially if they communicate a preference which is against the healthcare providers decision. For example, when they say I don’t want radiotherapy then the person is offended and says you go home, so sometimes it happens. (UCI 10)

The Centre receives patients of various ethnicities, and this causes linguistic challenges. Respondents reported that they usually find problems communicating with patients who do not understand English or Luganda, the two languages commonly used for communication at The Centre. They also noted that the consent forms are only available in English.

Usually the biggest hindrance is language […] But a patient with whom we speak English or Luganda we understand each other’s communication, are usually open and they really want to know. (UCI 05)

All respondents complained about the lack of privacy in the outpatient clinic. They felt that this prevents patients from communicating freely. This was attributed to the limited clinic space and big patient numbers attending the clinic.

We would like to have more clinic space for the big numbers of patients, more spacious rooms to ensure full privacy […] (UCI 06)

Recommendations for improving the consenting process for cancer care

Several suggestions for improving healthcare provider-patient communication were proposed. Lack of sufficient basic knowledge on cancer by the individuals who solicit informed consent was identified as one of the leading barriers to patients’ comprehension of the information disclosed during consenting process. Two respondents suggested that informed consent should be obtained by healthcare professionals who are knowledgeable and have good understanding of oncology. Respondents also recommended the training of healthcare professionals and equipping them with basic knowledge on oncology, and skills in effective communication, including the breaking of bad news.

“Health care workers should be trained to be more sensitive to patients concerns and be more responsive. We need to train health care providers on communication skill. How do you communicate to a patient? What is the best time, language, face you need to put on, the tone to communicate, the content? How do you check that you have communicated? We need to equip the people; we need to train them. (UCI 09)

Continuing medical education and training of health professionals in medical ethics was strongly recommended. Respondents also felt that patients should also be sensitised about the importance of informed consent in clinical practice.

Now the other aspect also is we need to do it from both ends, we need to get workers to appreciate the importance of informed consent as a protective measure because others take it lightly and from the perspective of patients, patients also need to appreciate that they need to consent. (UCI 09)

Another suggestion was the developing of appropriate and detailed informed consent documents, and standard operating procedures to guide the consenting process. Respondents suggested that consent documents should be translated into the most spoken local languages.

Have different consent forms for different procedures not a general one. It makes a lot of sense when someone documents that is consenting for a specific treatment, whether it’s a procedure whether it’s an infusion, whether it is swallowing it makes a lot of sense. (UCI 05)

Limited clinic space was identified as the main impediment to protection of privacy. Therefore, respondents recommended improvement of physical infrastructure to accommodate the large volume of patients and improve on patient privacy and confidentiality.

We would like to have more clinic space for the big numbers of patients, more spacious rooms to ensure full privacy […] (UCI 06)

Another issue that emerged was the role of patients in the decision-making process. One respondent recommended patient should be sensitized on their right to informed consent, and more involvement of patients in the decision-making process.

Discussion

Overall, all respondents had a clear understanding of informed consent and what the consenting process entails. They appreciated the value of disclosing accurate information to patients during the informed consent process to facilitate informed decision making. They concurred that patients have a right to information, and their expectations and preferences should be considered in making treatment decisions. However, they noted that at times, it is difficult to fully respect patients’ preferences. On the other hand, all respondents in our study expressed dissatisfaction with the consenting process at The Centre and highlighted major weaknesses in the consenting process. These findings are consistent with several studies in the literature that have reported sub-optimal informed consent practices in clinical care in Uganda [21, 23–27]. A recent study at Uganda Cancer Institute reported that more than half of the participants had little knowledge about their disease and treatment and 41% were never counselled about the side effects of therapy [21]. This further reiterates the need to identify the challenges and barriers to optimize the informed consent process for cancer care in low resource settings.

The patient has the right to know and participate in choosing his/her therapy. However, without basic understanding of the disease, risks, benefits, and alternative treatment options, patients cannot meaningfully make informed choices. Respondents felt that doctors are best suited to disclose disease and treatment-related information since they are perceived to be knowledgeable and well-grounded in oncology. However, this duty is often delegated to nurses and other junior healthcare professionals who may not be knowledgeable. It is important to note that disclosure of the diagnosis and prognostic information is a challenge to healthcare professionals the world over [33–35]. Consenting to cancer therapy is not just a matter of signing a consent form after receiving a simple explanation. With complex treatments becoming increasingly available in low resourced settings, it is ever becoming more important that healthcare professionals clearly understand and appreciate the treatment options, potential harms, and therapeutic outcomes of cancer therapy. It is also important to consider the social and cultural context in which consent is obtained because it can impact the information that should be disclosed to the patient [36]. That is why it is important for healthcare professionals to have meaningful dialogue with patients and their surrogates during the consenting process for cancer care. This not only helps clinicians learn about patients’ expectations and what they actually want to know about their disease and treatment, but also makes it easier for them to give appropriate explanations in case there is divergence in opinions and preferences.

Cancer care requires a multi-disciplinary approach involving various actors, including patients’ families. Family members play an important role in providing care to patients with cancer and should therefore participate in making decisions on the nature of therapy. It is also important to have family members that clearly understand and accept the patient’s health condition and prognosis. Such family members often have realistic expectations [9]. Evidence suggests that family involvement in decision making is associated with enhanced patient satisfaction and adherence to treatment [37]. Doctors in this study reported that oftentimes they convene meetings between the medical team and the patient’s family to decide on how best to communicate potentially distressing information to the patient, especially for the very sick and terminally ill. Breaking bad news to cancer patients is never easy [38, 39]. In several parts of the world, physicians prefer to discuss with families and break bad news to family members and let them decide whether the patient should be informed [40–43]. However, this creates a value conflict between respecting the patients right to know and respecting the family’s desire to protect the patient [40–43]. Disclosing the truth when breaking bad news is essential for informed decision-making for treatment. However, at times it is necessary to withhold the truth from the patient. Clinicians should assess the patient’s readiness to receive sensitive information. Patients should first be psychologically prepared before communicating potentially distressing information.

Withholding the truth and delayed disclosure of information from cancer patients is relatively common globally [41, 42]. Disclosure that involves withholding or misrepresentation of information is referred to as “fraudulent disclosure" and undermines consent [36]. Fraudulent disclosure can lead to invalid consent whereby a physician illegitimately controls a patient’s decision by controlling the information he/she discloses. For example, a physician might withhold information on drug adverse effects because he/she benevolently would not like to worry the patient. Despite the physician’s good intentions, if the information he/she withholds is dispositive of the patient’s decision to consent to treatment, he/she exercises illegitimate control that invalidates consent [36]. On the other hand, there is the concept of “therapeutic privilege”, where a physician can legitimately withhold information based on sound medical judgement, and disclosure of such information would potentially harm an emotionally drained or unstable patient [1]. Many people believe that disclosure of information on the nature and prognosis of cancer can result in emotional reactions that may impact negatively on treatment [41]. Withholding of information is therefore aimed at protecting patients, to give them hope, and encourage them to adhere to treatment [42]. However, contrary to the above argument, Giacomo et al. [44], contended that lack of information can cause uncertainty, anxiety and dissatisfaction and could be detrimental to the patient-physician relationship [45]. We therefore argue that withholding information should be based on sound medical judgement and not what the healthcare professional or family desire.

With the fast-paced medical and technological advancement, the informed consent process and thus patient education information is becoming ever more extensive and complex [46]. And that is the main reason why many clinicians are employing decisional aids to enhance comprehension and facilitate informed decision making in cancer care [47–49]. However, in this study we noted that much as IEC materials were available in the clinic, they were insufficient and healthcare professionals seldom use them. Some literature claims that patient IEC materials on cancer treatment are lengthy, difficult to understand, and often not suitable for laymen [50]. The IEC should therefore be tailored to the health literacy level of the public. In order to enhance comprehensibility, the vocabulary and language should be simplified to suit the target group [50].

Strengths and limitations

This is the first study to investigate and report in-depth perspectives of healthcare professionals of the informed consent process in cancer clinical care in Uganda. Furthermore, all respondents were actively participating in patient education and the administration of informed consent at a premier cancer treatment institution, as such, their insights will significantly inform best practices for cancer care. The main weakness of the study was the recruitment of healthcare professionals from only one institution (The Centre). However, we believe their views are provide a glimpse of what happens at most hospitals in Uganda, since our findings resonate well with the literature.

Regarding research reflexivity, we were aware that when interviewing healthcare professionals, we tried to remain neutral, setting aside our own views and to listen from the respondents’ perspective.

There were a few differences in the perspectives of the different health professionals. For confidentiality purposes, the professional roles of the respondents have been excluded in the presentation of results. Unlike nurses, doctors and the health educator called for meaningful dialogue and increased involvement of patients in consent discussions. They were also critical of the rudeness and unprofessional conduct of some of the personnel that solicit consent from patients. On the other hand, nurses and the health educator were critical of the delegation of duties to unqualified personnel. They asserted that doctors should devote adequate time to consent processes because their in-depth knowledge and understanding of cancer and cancer treatment.

Conclusion

In summary, respondents appreciated the value of disclosing accurate information to patients to facilitate informed decision making. They all concurred that patients have a right to information, and their expectations and preferences should be considered during the consenting process. However, they noted that at times, it is difficult to fully respect patients’ preferences. Several challenges to optimal information disclosure and informed consent for cancer care at The Centre have been identified. Healthcare professionals in this study expressed discontent with the informed consent practices because of the several challenges they encounter during the course of their duties. Informed consent documentation is poor, there is lack of privacy, and some healthcare professionals have poor communication skills. Some healthcare professionals behave unprofessionally and are poor communicators, and this impacts on patients’ mental health and motivation to contribute to meaningful dialogue.

Ideally, physicians are the ones supposed to solicit informed consent from patients, however, they usually delegate this responsibility people who may not be competent enough to communicate technical information.

These challenges were attributed to the lack of manpower coupled with a heavy patient load, time constraints, limited space, bad attitude towards patients, linguistic and ethnic barriers, and lack of policies and standard operating procedures on informed consent. Healthcare professional often liaise with patients’ family members for assisted decision-making and determine which information should be disclosed to the patient without causing harm; especially the terminally ill. Therefore, whenever necessary, family members should be considered in making decisions during the informed consent process, particularly for life-threatening diseases like cancer.

Best practices

We recommend significant improvement in informed consent practices in Uganda. There is a need for improved documentation through the development of detailed context-specific informed consent forms which should also be translated into the commonly spoken local language. Institutional policies and standard operating procedures should also be developed to guide patient health education and the consenting process.

One of the major challenges observed in this study was lack of privacy that was mainly attributed to the limited space in the out-patient clinics. We recommend physical infrastructural capacity strengthening to accommodate the large volume of patients and improve patient privacy and confidentiality. However, such a venture is very expensive and requires proper planning. We therefore implore UCI to consider this in their strategic planning.

There is a need for a less individualistic view of personal autonomy. Just like Ochieng et al. [51], we recommend interactive informed consent approaches that promote active patient involvement and bi-directional communication. A patient-centred approach to informed consent could help healthcare professionals see information disclosure as an opportunity to help patients cope and cooperate, rather than trying to avoid psychological distress that may already be present [43]. Such an approach could also help healthcare professionals understand the patient better, provide an opportunity to manage the patient’s expectations, and address any misperceptions.

Educational implications

We recommend continuing medical education and training of healthcare professional and equipping them with basic knowledge on the common cancers and their treatment. They should receive short course training in medical ethics with specific emphasis on patient autonomy and the informed consent process. These healthcare professionals should also undergo training in effective communication, counselling, and how to break bad news to cancer patients and their families. By so doing, we hope that this will enhance the communication skills of healthcare professionals and ultimately improve patients’ comprehension during the informed consent process.

Research agenda

Several studies in the literature have consistently documented major flaws in informed consent practices in clinical care in Uganda [23–27]. Most of these studies were conducted in tertiary and university teaching hospitals that may not be representative of the situation in the entire country. A multi-disciplinary nationwide needs assessment should be conducted to identify the current practices, facilitators, and barriers/challenges to optimal informed consent. We posit that this information will be valuable in establishing possible solutions and informing policy to optimize informed consent best practices in Uganda.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. COREQ checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0301586.s001.docx^{(24.3KB, docx)}

S1 File. Qualitative dataset.

(DOCX)

pone.0301586.s002.docx^{(498.5KB, docx)}

S2 File. Interview guide.

(DOCX)

pone.0301586.s003.docx^{(19.1KB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Associate Professor Charles Ibingira who was a co-supervisor to RK. We would like to thank UCI management for granting us administrative clearance to conduct research at her premises. We also acknowledge all our research participants and UCI staff. Lastly, we acknowledge Adelline Twimukye for her role in data analysis. The authors would like to acknowledge all respondents.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R25TW009730 that supported RK’s Master of Health Sciences in Bioethics program at Makerere University. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors would like to acknowledge all respondents. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Beauchamp TL, Childress J: Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Seventh edn. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
2.CIOMS: International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans. 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Emanuel EJ, Joffe S: Ethics in oncology. In: Cancer Medicine. edn. Edited by Bast RC, Kufe DW, Pollock RE. Hamilton: B.C. Decker, Inc; 2000: 1145–1163. [Google Scholar]
4.Van de Water L, Van Kleef J, Dijksterhuis W, Henselmans I, Van den Boorn H, Vaarzon Morel N, et al. : Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods. Quality of Life Research 2020, 29:1747–1766. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02503-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Lanceley A: Toward Personalized Informed Consent in Cancer Care. In., vol. 41: Taylor & Francis; 2022: 210–214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Hall A: What the Navajo culture teaches about informed consent. In: HEC Forum: 2002: Springer; 2002: 241–246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Chen C, Cheng G, Chen X, Yu L: Information disclosure to cancer patients in Mainland China: A meta‐analysis. Psycho‐Oncology 2023, 32(3):342–355. doi: 10.1002/pon.6085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Elias H, Ozdemir S, Bairavi J, Achieng E, Finkelstein EA: Prognostic Awareness, Preferences for Prognostic Information, and Health-related Quality of Life Among Advanced Cancer Patients in Kenya. 2023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Schulman-Green D, Lin JJ, Smith CB, Feder S, Bickell NA: Facilitators and barriers to oncologists’ conduct of goals of care conversations. Journal of palliative care 2018, 33(3):143–148. doi: 10.1177/0825859718777361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Kelly EP, Paredes AZ, Tsilimigras DI, Hyer JM, Pawlik TM: The role of religion and spirituality in cancer care: An umbrella review of the literature. Surgical Oncology 2022, 42:101389. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2020.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Kh JA: The effect of religious attitudes (religiosity) on resilience of cancer patients. Iranian Journal of Cancer Care (ijca) 2020, 1(2):1–8. [Google Scholar]
12.Toledo G, Ochoa CY, Farias AJ: Religion and spirituality: their role in the psychosocial adjustment to breast cancer and subsequent symptom management of adjuvant endocrine therapy. Supportive Care in Cancer 2021, 29:3017–3024. doi: 10.1007/s00520-020-05722-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC: Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. The Lancet 2001, 358(9295):1772–1777. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06805-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Perni S, Jimenez R, Jagsi R: Optimizing Informed Consent in Cancer Clinical Trials. In: Seminars in Radiation Oncology: 2023: Elsevier; 2023: 349–357. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2023.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Bergenmar M, Johansson H, Wilking N: Levels of knowledge and perceived understanding among participants in cancer clinical trials–factors related to the informed consent procedure. Clinical trials 2011, 8(1):77–84. doi: 10.1177/1740774510384516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Barrett R: Quality of informed consent: measuring understanding among participants in oncology clinical trials. In: Oncology nursing forum: 2005; 2005. doi: 10.1188/05.ONF.751-755 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Unger JM, Hershman DL, Till C, Minasian LM, Osarogiagbon RU, Fleury ME, et al. : “When offered to participate”: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient agreement to participate in cancer clinical trials. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2021, 113(3):244–257. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Global Cancer Observatory: Uganda [https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/800-uganda-fact-sheets.pdf]
19.Mwaka AD, Garimoi CO, Were EM, Roland M, Wabinga H, Lyratzopoulos G: Social, demographic and healthcare factors associated with stage at diagnosis of cervical cancer: cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital in Northern Uganda. BMJ open 2016, 6(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Meacham E, Orem J, Nakigudde G, Zujewski JA, Rao D: Exploring stigma as a barrier to cancer service engagement with breast cancer survivors in Kampala, Uganda. Psycho‐oncology 2016, 25(10):1206–1211. doi: 10.1002/pon.4215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Nakaganda A, Solt K, Kwagonza L, Driscoll D, Kampi R, Orem J: Challenges faced by cancer patients in Uganda: implications for health systems strengthening in resource limited settings. Journal of Cancer Policy 2021, 27:100263. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2020.100263 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Espina C, McKenzie F, dos-Santos-Silva I: Delayed presentation and diagnosis of breast cancer in African women: a systematic review. Annals of epidemiology 2017, 27(10):659–671. e657. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2017.09.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Ochieng J, Buwembo W, Munabi I, Ibingira C, Kiryowa H, Nzarubara G, et al. : Informed consent in clinical practice: patients’ experiences and perspectives following surgery. BMC research notes 2015, 8:765. doi: 10.1186/s13104-015-1754-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Ochieng J, Ibingira C, Buwembo W, Munabi I, Kiryowa H, Kitara D, et al. : Informed consent practices for surgical care at university teaching hospitals; a case in a low resource setting. BMC medical ethics 2014, 15(1):40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Wismayer R: Study about Informed Consent for Surgical Care in East Africa. New Horizons in Medicine and Medical Research Vol 3 2022:210–215. [Google Scholar]
26.Kituuka O, Mwaka E, Munabi I, Galukande M: Experiences of patients and next of kin on informed consent process for emergency surgery in two Urban university teaching hospitals in Uganda: a comparative cross sectional study. BMC Emergency Medicine 2023, 23(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Nono D, Mapley E, Rwenyonyi CM, Okullo I: Assessment of the informed consent process in the provision of dental care in Mulago hospital, Uganda. BMC Oral Health 2022, 22(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Sandelowski M: Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in nursing & health 2000, 23(4):334–340. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Strauss A, Corbin J: Basics of qualitative research techniques, 2nd edn. Thousand Oak, Califonia: Sage; 1998. [Google Scholar]
30.Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E: Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International journal of qualitative methods 2006, 5(1):80–92. [Google Scholar]
31.Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 2006, 3(2):77–101. [Google Scholar]
32.Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, Campbell C, Walter F: Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative health research 2016, 26(13):1802–1811. doi: 10.1177/1049732316654870 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Ardestani SMS, Faridhosseini F, Shirkhani F, Karamad A, Farid L, Bordbar MRF, et al. : Do cancer patients prefer to know the diagnosis? A descriptive study among Iranian patients. Iranian journal of psychiatry and behavioral sciences 2015, 9(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Horikawa N, Yamazaki T, Sagawa M, Nagata T: Changes in disclosure of information to cancer patients in a general hospital in Japan. General hospital psychiatry 2000, 22(1):37–42. doi: 10.1016/s0163-8343(99)00042-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Kawakami S, Arai G, Ueda K, Murai Y, Yokomichi H, Aoshima M, et al. : Physician’s attitudes towards disclosure of cancer diagnosis to elderly patients: a report from Tokyo, Japan. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 2001, 33(1):29–36. doi: 10.1016/s0167-4943(01)00099-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Millum J, Bromwich D: Informed consent: What must be disclosed and what must be understood? The American Journal of Bioethics 2021, 21(5):46–58. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1863511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Hobbs GS, Landrum MB, Arora NK, Ganz PA, Van Ryn M, Weeks JC, et al. : The role of families in decisions regarding cancer treatments. Cancer 2015, 121(7):1079–1087. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Krieger T, Salm S, Dresen A, Cecon N: Cancer patients’ experiences and preferences when receiving bad news: a qualitative study. Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology 2023, 149(7):3859–3870. doi: 10.1007/s00432-022-04311-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Miller EM, Porter JE, Barbagallo MS: The experiences of health professionals, patients, and families with truth disclosure when breaking bad news in palliative care: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Palliative & supportive care 2022, 20(3):433–444. doi: 10.1017/S1478951521001243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Aljubran AH: The attitude towards disclosure of bad news to cancer patients in Saudi Arabia. Annals of Saudi medicine 2010, 30(2):141–144. doi: 10.4103/0256-4947.60520 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Motlagh A, Yaraei N, Mafi AR, Kamal FH, Yaseri M, Hemati S, et al. : Attitude of cancer patients toward diagnosis disclosure and their preference for clinical decision-making: a national surve y. Archives of Iranian medicine 2014, 17(4):0–0. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Zheng X, Tang Y: Who breaks bad news: Doctors, family caregivers or cancer patients? A qualitative study in Southern China. Death Studies 2023, 47(1):21–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Hahne J, Liang T, Khoshnood K, Wang X, Li X: Breaking bad news about cancer in China: Concerns and conflicts faced by doctors deciding whether to inform patients. Patient education and counseling 2020, 103(2):286–291. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Di Giacomo P, Mariotti A, Vignali A, Andruccioli J: Awareness of diagnosis and prognosis in patients with unfavorable prognosis: perception of the attitudes of a group of doctors and nurses. Professioni Infermieristiche 2012, 65(3):143–153. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Nakajima N, Hata Y, Onishi H, Ishida M: The evaluation of the relationship between the level of disclosure of cancer in terminally ill patients with cancer and the quality of terminal care in these patients and their families using the Support Team Assessment Schedule. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® 2013, 30(4):370–376. doi: 10.1177/1049909112452466 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Glaser J, Nouri S, Fernandez A, Sudore RL, Schillinger D, Klein-Fedyshin M, et al. : Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures: an updated systematic review. Medical Decision Making 2020, 40(2):119–143. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19896348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Smith TJ, Dow LA, Virago EA, Khatcheressian J, Matsuyama R, Lyckholm LJ: A pilot trial of decision aids to give truthful prognostic and treatment information to chemotherapy patients with advanced cancer. The journal of supportive oncology 2011, 9(2):79. doi: 10.1016/j.suponc.2010.12.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Yun YH, Lee MK, Park S, Lee JL, Park J, Choi YS, et al. : Use of a decision aid to help caregivers discuss terminal disease status with a family member with cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2011, 29(36):4811–4819. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.3870 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Volk RJ, Lowenstein LM, Leal VB, Escoto KH, Cantor SB, Munden RF, et al. : Effect of a patient decision aid on lung cancer screening decision-making by persons who smoke: a randomized clinical tria l. JAMA network open 2020, 3(1):e1920362–e1920362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Keinki C, Zowalla R, Wiesner M, Koester MJ, Huebner J: Understandability of patient information booklets for patients with cancer. Journal of Cancer Education 2018, 33:517–527. doi: 10.1007/s13187-016-1121-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Ochieng J, Ibingira C, Buwembo W, Munabi I, Kiryowa H, Kitara D, et al. : Informed consent in clinical practice; Patients’ experiences and perspectives following surgery. Submitted to BMC Medical Ethics- In press 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301586.r001

Decision Letter 0

Luca Valera

22 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-26045Information disclosure during the consenting process in cancer clinical care: perspectives of healthcare professionals at Uganda Cancer InstitutePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mwaka,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 06 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luca Valera

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file).

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study was supported by the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R25TW009730 that supported RK’s Master of Health Sciences in Bioethics program at Makerere University. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors would like to acknowledge all respondents.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We acknowledge Associate Professor Charles Ibingira who was a co-supervisor to RK. We would like to thank UCI management for granting us administrative clearance to conduct research at her premises. We also acknowledge all our research participants and UCI staff. Lastly, we acknowledge Adelline Twimukye for her role in data analysis.

This study was supported by the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R25TW009730. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors would like to acknowledge all respondents.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper presents an interesting research based in Uganda about healthcare professionals’ perception of information disclosure to patients in the sensitive context of cancer care.

My premise is that I strongly believe this kind of qualitative research is fruitful since it gives the opportunity to the main actors of a specific context to express their opinion. However, it must be rigorous, and the methodology must be solid and well described: otherwise, the high risk is for qualitative research to be biased and provide opinions instead of precious findings.

I chose to give the authors the chance to show me that the research is based on a solid methodology, that unfortunately I cannot see in the article. Here some specific points I find weak:

- In the Introduction I read “one way of respecting a person’s autonomy is through obtaining informed consent”. This sentence shows me a general problem about this article: instead, I would say that respecting one’s autonomy entails giving them the possibility to give their consent, that must be informed. Put in the authors’ way, this sensitive topic is quite shallow. I trust that the authors know what they are talking about, but they did not manage to well explain it in the article. Also, there is no literature about autonomy nor informed consent: adding it could help the authors’ digging into the main topic of their research in a more profound way, that consequently helps the reader to understand the overall picture.

- Although every informed consent should be considered essential in persons’ care, the authors want to be sure that their readers understand that different fields of care are on different levels. Comparing the informed consent process for dental care to cancer care it is confusing and does not give to the sensitive context they are exploring the attention it deserves. Again, no literature about the sensitive context of cancer care is provided.

- What’s the Charter (reference 8)? It is not obvious for a reader that is not from Uganda. No specific understanding of Uganda’s context is provided – except for a brief description of the hospital where they conducted their research. I think that it is useful to describe every context in its uniqueness, and especially such a context: it would give to the research more credibility and show its importance. From authors’ words, “the required services are not available at the primary health unit where patients are first attended”: what does this mean? That is not common and probably pertains to a delicate context that is not explained. The “linguistic challenge” that such a context must face are not obvious either.

- “Materials and methods” section is quite weak. I would prefer a different structure to give a solid base to the research. I cannot find different important elements; for example, why only 10 participants? It’s quite a small number. Even more important, why only healthcare professionals and not patients, that are the main subjects of the topic? I would suggest providing a table about interviewees, with variables that the authors seemed to collect (profession, gender, age…). Also, it would be interesting to provide a table with the questions they used in the interviews; and were the interviews structured, semi-structure…? What do the authors mean when they say that “the interview guide was piloted on three cancer patients”? It is not a standard process considering that they aimed to interview healthcare professionals and not patients, so they at least need to provide a justification for that. The authors declare that translations from Luganda to English were made: what is the method implied? Was the translation provided by a mother tongue? Or a software? That is such an important point, because we well know that translations may convey different meanings compared to the original language. The authors declare that “some transcripts were returned to interviewees for member checking”: what does this mean? Is this related to the coding? This point also needs a justification. A description of the interviewers is provided at the end of the section dedicated to data management and analysis, and I do not think it is the right place. Also, the authors disclose their biases in conducting this research, but the way they do that (“it was difficult for us to be totally objective”) does not strengthen the article; instead, it could be seen as unprofessional and compromise the overall research, because even though it is true that researchers are not objective, their methodology should be in order to guarantee reliable results.

- The authors report that “some respondents […] withhold or delay the disclosure of vital information”: this is such an interesting and sensitive point that must be further explored – otherwise, it could be read as a justification for this behavior that is not even legally permitted. Similarly, when the authors say that some healthcare professionals “hold discussions with the patient’s family if the patient is not competent”: what do they mean with “competent”? Can ever a patient be competent enough? Again, “patients are increasingly agitating for more active involvement” is an ambiguous sentence that needs to be further explored.

- References 28 and 32 are not written in the correct way.

- The “Discussion” section often repeats concepts already explored without digging more. As already said, sentences like “at times it is necessary to withhold the truth from the patient” seem to me quite dangerous if not well-contextualized. It is quite annoying for the reader that some sentences are repeated in different places without further analysis.

- I suggest a revision of English: there are subjects missing and many sentences are just copied and pasted.

In my opinion, the subject is interesting and I would be glad to read this article written in a more solid way; I expect the authors to show the robustness of their methodology based on the comments above.

Reviewer #2: See uploaded document that includes all comments to the author as the formatting became distorted when uploaded to this box. Please note am also typing here to meet character limit so I can upload document successfully and proceed with submission of this review to PLOS One.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Monica Consolandi

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS One review_11.21.23.docx

pone.0301586.s004.docx^{(16.6KB, docx)}

PLoS One. 2024 Apr 4;19(4):e0301586. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301586.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

6 Jan 2024

Reviewer 1

Comment Response Page number

In the Introduction I read “one way of respecting a person’s autonomy is through obtaining informed consent”. This sentence shows me a general problem about this article: instead, I would say that respecting one’s autonomy entails giving them the possibility to give their consent, that must be informed. Put in the authors’ way, this sensitive topic is quite shallow. I trust that the authors know what they are talking about, but they did not manage to well explain it in the article. Also, there is no literature about autonomy nor informed consent: adding it could help the authors’ digging into the main topic of their research in a more profound way, that consequently helps the reader to understand the overall picture. We would like to that the reviewer for this important observation. The entire introduction has been re-written. Informed consent has been defined and the other factors that influence the informed consent process have been added. Information has been added on the Ugandan context. Pages 4- 6

Although every informed consent should be considered essential in persons’ care, the authors want to be sure that their readers understand that different fields of care are on different levels. Comparing the informed consent process for dental care to cancer care it is confusing and does not give to the sensitive context they are exploring the attention it deserves. Again, no literature about the sensitive context of cancer care is provided.

“Materials and methods” section is quite weak. I would prefer a different structure to give a solid base to the research. I cannot find different important elements; for example, why only 10 participants? It’s quite a small number. Even more important, why only healthcare professionals and not patients, that are the main subjects of the topic? Thanks for the comment. This study focused on healthcare professionals because several studies have reported challenges to the informed consent process in clinical care in Uganda, with healthcare professionals being the main culprits. That is why we set out to examine the opinions of healthcare professionals as opposed to patients. This information has been included under “Participants”.

We conducted on 10 interviews because data saturation was achieved after the 10th interview. All respondents were all from the same institution. This has been included on pages 7- 8

I would suggest providing a table about interviewees, with variables that the authors seemed to collect (profession, gender, age…).

A table showing the sex and profession of the respondents, in general terms has been added on page 10. This has been done to protect the confidentiality of the respondents since the number is small and all are from the same institution. Pages 10

Also, it would be interesting to provide a table with the questions they used in the interviews; and were the interviews structured, semi-structure…? We used a semi-structured interview guide (Uploaded as a supplementary file).

What do the authors mean when they say that “the interview guide was piloted on three cancer patients”? It is not a standard process considering that they aimed to interview healthcare professionals and not patients, so they at least need to provide a justification for that. We sincerely apologize for this error. The tool was pre-tested on three healthcare professionals offering out-patient care at another hospital.

The authors declare that translations from Luganda to English were made: what is the method implied? Was the translation provided by a mother tongue? Or a software? That is such an important point, because we well know that translations may convey different meanings compared to the original language We apologise for this error, all interviews were conducted in English.

The authors declare that “some transcripts were returned to interviewees for member checking”: what does this mean? Is this related to the coding? This point also needs a justification. Member checking refers to the return of transcript to respondents to check for accuracy of transcription. This has been changed. Page 9

A description of the interviewers is provided at the end of the section dedicated to data management and analysis, and I do not think it is the right place. Also, the authors disclose their biases in conducting this research, but the way they do that (“it was difficult for us to be totally objective”) does not strengthen the article; instead, it could be seen as unprofessional and compromise the overall research, because even though it is true that researchers are not objective, their methodology should be in order to guarantee reliable results. We would like to thank the reviewer for this observation. We included that as a statement on reflexivity based on the COREQ requirement for reporting qualitative research. We have revised the statement and transferred it to the study limitations. Pages 25

The authors report that “some respondents […] withhold or delay the disclosure of vital information”: this is such an interesting and sensitive point that must be further explored – otherwise, it could be read as a justification for this behavior that is not even legally permitted. Withholding or delayed disclosure of information is commonly practiced by health professional globally, but it must be based on sound medical judgement. It is also documented in ethics literature and is often referred to as “therapeutic privilege”. This issue is discussed at length in the discussion and references have been cited. Pages 23- 24

Similarly, when the authors say that some healthcare professionals “hold discussions with the patient’s family if the patient is not competent”: what do they mean with “competent”? Can ever a patient be competent enough? Again, “patients are increasingly agitating for more active involvement” is an ambiguous sentence that needs to be further explored. These statements have been revised

References 28 and 32 are not written in the correct way. Both references have been deleted

The “Discussion” section often repeats concepts already explored without digging more. As already said, sentences like “at times it is necessary to withhold the truth from the patient” seem to me quite dangerous if not well-contextualized. It is quite annoying for the reader that some sentences are repeated in different places without further analysis. This has been revised and clarified in the discussion Pages 23- 24

Reviewer 2

Need to clarify what is meant by ‘informed consent’ - this term has multiple interpretations and conceptualizations, depending on the context. It can mean a specific document related to a specific event (e.g., surgery or procedure) or it can relate to more general discussions between providers and patients regarding prognosis, treatment goals, and disclosure of diagnosis. In the paper, multiple aspects of ‘informed consent’ are discussed and what is meant by ‘information disclosure during the consenting process’ is unclear. It also seems based on the interview data participants interpreted this concept very differently as well.

We are very grateful for this comment. We have provided more literature on informed consent in the introduction. Pages 4- 6

Inappropriate qualitative methodology and concern regarding sampling strategy. Sample size concern

How was data saturation achieved given n=10 of such diverse participant perspectives and roles? We conducted on 10 interviews because data saturation was achieved after the 10th interview. All respondents were purposively recruited from one institution. This has been included on page 8

Abstract:

- Needs more detail and organization, especially regarding methods.

o Introduction – need to specify study took place in Uganda.

o Methods – more detail is needed (e.g, type of healthcare providers recruited; how were key informants selected; within same institution; what qualitative approach was used? How were interviews conducted?

Results – should be organized by key themes; barriers are referenced but not listed/described The abstract has been revised. 2

Introduction:

- Need to place study within global context and acknowledge differing cultural norms related to ‘informed consent’

- Need to clarify how the proposed study address the gap in the existing literature

- Similarly, need to provide more citations supporting the need to look at informed consent processes in cancer care specifically.

We would like to that the reviewer for this important observation. The entire introduction has been re-written. Informed consent has been defined and the other factors that influence the informed consent process have been added. Information has been added on the Ugandan context.

Methods:

- Sections disjointed and not well organized

- More detail regarding how key informants were selected and rationale for sampling strategy is needed

Potential sampling issue – my experience in global health is that nurses are very rarely/if ever involved in ‘obtaining informed consent’ – although this is the eligibility criteria described under “Participants.” See comment below about being clear what is meant by ‘informed consent.’ The material and methods’ section has been revised. Unnecessary information has been deleted, and some transferred to the study limitations.

We totally agree with the reviewer. Ideally it is the physician who should solicit informed consent from patients. However, the few studies from Uganda have reported non-compliance with internationally accepted standards regarding informed consent for clinical care. These studies have shown that it is the nurses and other junior staff that solicit informed consent, including for surgical procedures. (Kituuka: doi.org/10.1186/s12873-023-00856-0, Ochieng: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/15/40). In another study only 5% of dental practitioners obtained written informed consent for invasive dental procedures (Nono: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02550-2).

The situation is not any different at the Uganda Cancer Institute, it is the junior staff that solicit consent, and that is why we selected the people who actively participate in the consenting process.

6- 9

Include more detail about type of institution and rationale for study site in Methods – did not de-identify study site – seems problematic given small sample size More detail has been added to the description of the study site. The study site has also been de-identified to protect the confidentiality of the study participants. Pages 7

Authors state they used a phenomenological approach to their qualitative inquiry, but this is not supported by their reported data collection and analysis methods. Phenomenology is a highly specialized and complex type of qualitative inquiry that deeply explores the ‘lived experience’ of human existence (such as grief), with in-depth interviews (often repeated interviews with same participants) grounded in the philosophical orientation of phenomenology and requires a high level of abstraction in data analysis. What is described in this paper is consistent with a qualitative descriptive approach, where the goal is to stay close to the data to answer more concrete and specific questions that have been identified a priori (see Sandelowski, PMID: 10940958) We would like to thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We would also like to thank him for the article. We have revised the approach to a “Qualitative descriptive” approach.

Interviews were all in English, but some were translated from local language? We apologise for this error, all interviews were conducted in English.

141-142 – Why was the interview guide pilot tested on cancer patients? We sincerely apologise for this error. The tool was pre-tested on three healthcare professionals offering out-patient care at another hospital. Pages 8

Data analysis – where is prior analytic framework? (referenced in lines 162-164) The pre-determined themes are included in the interview guide that has been uploaded as a supplementary file.

166-167 – quotes should inform themes not vice versa We indicated that the themes emerged from the text.

169-180 – feels out of place with unnecessary detail; could add a brief statement regarding reflexivity to Discussion or perhaps to Limitations Details on reflexivity have been transferred to the limitations. Pages 25

Results:

Would help to describe participants and their roles more clearly to help contextualize the themes – e.g., what is meant by medical officer? What is the difference between nurse and nurse counselor? Is the palliative care specialist a physician or a nurse? - A medical officer is a general practitioner, and a nurse counsellor is a nurse who specializes in counselling. The palliative care specialist is a medical consultant. In view of the comment from reviewer 2, we have included a table with only sex and occupation. We have also decided to use “Doctor” for the oncologists, medical officer and palliative care specialist to protect their confidentiality, since the sample size was small. We have also refrained from indicating their professional role against the quotes.

Pages 10

Table 1 would be strengthened by including supporting quotes to justify how themes were developed. Thanks for the suggestion, we have added a few quotes to Table 2

Overall, Results section could be more concise and more clearly organized (some information is repeated – e.g., suggestions are repeated again under ‘barriers’)

The results section has been improved and redundant quotes deleted.

Consider a table that summarizes recommendations discussed by participants in interviews The recommendations are included in Table 2 under the theme The recommendations are included in Table 2 under Theme 5: Recommendations for improving the consenting process for cancer care. Pages 11

439-443 – repeated quote. Thanks for this observation, the quote has been

Need to clarify the role the family plays in receiving the information and providing informed consent (e.g., 224 – 225)

Details on the role of the family in informed consent have been included in the discussion. Pages 22- 23

Discussion:

- Some information in Discussion is repeated information from Results

- Discussion should focus on how findings differ or support prior work; how findings should be interpreted; how fills a gap in the literature (as it reads, it’s unclear the main contributions or innovation the paper makes to the current literature)

- Differences in responses by discipline/background could be significantly influenced by scope of practice, perceived roles, issues related to power/control, cultural norms, structural barriers related to communication – and critically how participant understood the concept of ‘informed consent.’ These factors are not adequately addressed and need more attention.

555 – 557 - “It is for this reason that some authors believe that physician led informed consent discussions are often ineffective because of the heavy workload and mechanistic way consent is obtained [41].” What do the authors mean by “some authors”? Why is there an implied discrepancy between authors The discussion has been significantly improved and information and quotes deleted.

This has been deleted.

Best practices:

- Would cut this section as does not feel relevant to this paper; reads as section of dissertation inserted into manuscript.

This section highlights some of the recommendations from our study. It is now more concise; the irrelevant information has been deleted. Pages 27

Minor point

- Term ‘opined’ is overused throughout paper and is a bit distracting

This has been revised.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments.docx

pone.0301586.s005.docx^{(29.8KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301586.r003

Decision Letter 1

Luca Valera

19 Mar 2024

Informed consent in cancer clinical care: perspectives of healthcare professionals on information disclosure at a tertiary institution in Uganda

PONE-D-23-26045R1

Dear Dr. Sabakaki Mwaka

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Luca Valera

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: "To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first article to document informed consent practices in cancer care in Uganda." --> I would put this line 101 before “this study therefore…”

I'm glad to see that the authors addressed all the comments and suggestions; the article sounds definitely better. I'm also happy to see that this kind of qualitative research is being pursued, providing PlosOne readers with the opportunity to better understand a particular context, such as the Ugandan one.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Monica Consolandi

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301586.r004

Acceptance letter

Luca Valera

22 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-26045R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mwaka,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Luca Valera

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Checklist. COREQ checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0301586.s001.docx^{(24.3KB, docx)}

S1 File. Qualitative dataset.

(DOCX)

pone.0301586.s002.docx^{(498.5KB, docx)}

S2 File. Interview guide.

(DOCX)

pone.0301586.s003.docx^{(19.1KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS One review_11.21.23.docx

pone.0301586.s004.docx^{(16.6KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments.docx

pone.0301586.s005.docx^{(29.8KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0301586.ref001] 1.Beauchamp TL, Childress J: Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Seventh edn. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref002] 2.CIOMS: International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans. 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref003] 3.Emanuel EJ, Joffe S: Ethics in oncology. In: Cancer Medicine. edn. Edited by Bast RC, Kufe DW, Pollock RE. Hamilton: B.C. Decker, Inc; 2000: 1145–1163. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref004] 4.Van de Water L, Van Kleef J, Dijksterhuis W, Henselmans I, Van den Boorn H, Vaarzon Morel N, et al. : Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods. Quality of Life Research 2020, 29:1747–1766. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02503-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref005] 5.Lanceley A: Toward Personalized Informed Consent in Cancer Care. In., vol. 41: Taylor & Francis; 2022: 210–214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref006] 6.Hall A: What the Navajo culture teaches about informed consent. In: HEC Forum: 2002: Springer; 2002: 241–246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref007] 7.Chen C, Cheng G, Chen X, Yu L: Information disclosure to cancer patients in Mainland China: A meta‐analysis. Psycho‐Oncology 2023, 32(3):342–355. doi: 10.1002/pon.6085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref008] 8.Elias H, Ozdemir S, Bairavi J, Achieng E, Finkelstein EA: Prognostic Awareness, Preferences for Prognostic Information, and Health-related Quality of Life Among Advanced Cancer Patients in Kenya. 2023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref009] 9.Schulman-Green D, Lin JJ, Smith CB, Feder S, Bickell NA: Facilitators and barriers to oncologists’ conduct of goals of care conversations. Journal of palliative care 2018, 33(3):143–148. doi: 10.1177/0825859718777361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref010] 10.Kelly EP, Paredes AZ, Tsilimigras DI, Hyer JM, Pawlik TM: The role of religion and spirituality in cancer care: An umbrella review of the literature. Surgical Oncology 2022, 42:101389. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2020.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref011] 11.Kh JA: The effect of religious attitudes (religiosity) on resilience of cancer patients. Iranian Journal of Cancer Care (ijca) 2020, 1(2):1–8. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref012] 12.Toledo G, Ochoa CY, Farias AJ: Religion and spirituality: their role in the psychosocial adjustment to breast cancer and subsequent symptom management of adjuvant endocrine therapy. Supportive Care in Cancer 2021, 29:3017–3024. doi: 10.1007/s00520-020-05722-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref013] 13.Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC: Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. The Lancet 2001, 358(9295):1772–1777. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06805-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref014] 14.Perni S, Jimenez R, Jagsi R: Optimizing Informed Consent in Cancer Clinical Trials. In: Seminars in Radiation Oncology: 2023: Elsevier; 2023: 349–357. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2023.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref015] 15.Bergenmar M, Johansson H, Wilking N: Levels of knowledge and perceived understanding among participants in cancer clinical trials–factors related to the informed consent procedure. Clinical trials 2011, 8(1):77–84. doi: 10.1177/1740774510384516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref016] 16.Barrett R: Quality of informed consent: measuring understanding among participants in oncology clinical trials. In: Oncology nursing forum: 2005; 2005. doi: 10.1188/05.ONF.751-755 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref017] 17.Unger JM, Hershman DL, Till C, Minasian LM, Osarogiagbon RU, Fleury ME, et al. : “When offered to participate”: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient agreement to participate in cancer clinical trials. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2021, 113(3):244–257. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref018] 18.Global Cancer Observatory: Uganda [https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/800-uganda-fact-sheets.pdf]

[pone.0301586.ref019] 19.Mwaka AD, Garimoi CO, Were EM, Roland M, Wabinga H, Lyratzopoulos G: Social, demographic and healthcare factors associated with stage at diagnosis of cervical cancer: cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital in Northern Uganda. BMJ open 2016, 6(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref020] 20.Meacham E, Orem J, Nakigudde G, Zujewski JA, Rao D: Exploring stigma as a barrier to cancer service engagement with breast cancer survivors in Kampala, Uganda. Psycho‐oncology 2016, 25(10):1206–1211. doi: 10.1002/pon.4215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref021] 21.Nakaganda A, Solt K, Kwagonza L, Driscoll D, Kampi R, Orem J: Challenges faced by cancer patients in Uganda: implications for health systems strengthening in resource limited settings. Journal of Cancer Policy 2021, 27:100263. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2020.100263 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref022] 22.Espina C, McKenzie F, dos-Santos-Silva I: Delayed presentation and diagnosis of breast cancer in African women: a systematic review. Annals of epidemiology 2017, 27(10):659–671. e657. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2017.09.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref023] 23.Ochieng J, Buwembo W, Munabi I, Ibingira C, Kiryowa H, Nzarubara G, et al. : Informed consent in clinical practice: patients’ experiences and perspectives following surgery. BMC research notes 2015, 8:765. doi: 10.1186/s13104-015-1754-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref024] 24.Ochieng J, Ibingira C, Buwembo W, Munabi I, Kiryowa H, Kitara D, et al. : Informed consent practices for surgical care at university teaching hospitals; a case in a low resource setting. BMC medical ethics 2014, 15(1):40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref025] 25.Wismayer R: Study about Informed Consent for Surgical Care in East Africa. New Horizons in Medicine and Medical Research Vol 3 2022:210–215. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref026] 26.Kituuka O, Mwaka E, Munabi I, Galukande M: Experiences of patients and next of kin on informed consent process for emergency surgery in two Urban university teaching hospitals in Uganda: a comparative cross sectional study. BMC Emergency Medicine 2023, 23(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref027] 27.Nono D, Mapley E, Rwenyonyi CM, Okullo I: Assessment of the informed consent process in the provision of dental care in Mulago hospital, Uganda. BMC Oral Health 2022, 22(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref028] 28.Sandelowski M: Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in nursing & health 2000, 23(4):334–340. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref029] 29.Strauss A, Corbin J: Basics of qualitative research techniques, 2nd edn. Thousand Oak, Califonia: Sage; 1998. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref030] 30.Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E: Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International journal of qualitative methods 2006, 5(1):80–92. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref031] 31.Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 2006, 3(2):77–101. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref032] 32.Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, Campbell C, Walter F: Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative health research 2016, 26(13):1802–1811. doi: 10.1177/1049732316654870 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref033] 33.Ardestani SMS, Faridhosseini F, Shirkhani F, Karamad A, Farid L, Bordbar MRF, et al. : Do cancer patients prefer to know the diagnosis? A descriptive study among Iranian patients. Iranian journal of psychiatry and behavioral sciences 2015, 9(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref034] 34.Horikawa N, Yamazaki T, Sagawa M, Nagata T: Changes in disclosure of information to cancer patients in a general hospital in Japan. General hospital psychiatry 2000, 22(1):37–42. doi: 10.1016/s0163-8343(99)00042-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref035] 35.Kawakami S, Arai G, Ueda K, Murai Y, Yokomichi H, Aoshima M, et al. : Physician’s attitudes towards disclosure of cancer diagnosis to elderly patients: a report from Tokyo, Japan. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 2001, 33(1):29–36. doi: 10.1016/s0167-4943(01)00099-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref036] 36.Millum J, Bromwich D: Informed consent: What must be disclosed and what must be understood? The American Journal of Bioethics 2021, 21(5):46–58. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1863511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref037] 37.Hobbs GS, Landrum MB, Arora NK, Ganz PA, Van Ryn M, Weeks JC, et al. : The role of families in decisions regarding cancer treatments. Cancer 2015, 121(7):1079–1087. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref038] 38.Krieger T, Salm S, Dresen A, Cecon N: Cancer patients’ experiences and preferences when receiving bad news: a qualitative study. Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology 2023, 149(7):3859–3870. doi: 10.1007/s00432-022-04311-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref039] 39.Miller EM, Porter JE, Barbagallo MS: The experiences of health professionals, patients, and families with truth disclosure when breaking bad news in palliative care: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Palliative & supportive care 2022, 20(3):433–444. doi: 10.1017/S1478951521001243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref040] 40.Aljubran AH: The attitude towards disclosure of bad news to cancer patients in Saudi Arabia. Annals of Saudi medicine 2010, 30(2):141–144. doi: 10.4103/0256-4947.60520 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref041] 41.Motlagh A, Yaraei N, Mafi AR, Kamal FH, Yaseri M, Hemati S, et al. : Attitude of cancer patients toward diagnosis disclosure and their preference for clinical decision-making: a national surve y. Archives of Iranian medicine 2014, 17(4):0–0. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref042] 42.Zheng X, Tang Y: Who breaks bad news: Doctors, family caregivers or cancer patients? A qualitative study in Southern China. Death Studies 2023, 47(1):21–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref043] 43.Hahne J, Liang T, Khoshnood K, Wang X, Li X: Breaking bad news about cancer in China: Concerns and conflicts faced by doctors deciding whether to inform patients. Patient education and counseling 2020, 103(2):286–291. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref044] 44.Di Giacomo P, Mariotti A, Vignali A, Andruccioli J: Awareness of diagnosis and prognosis in patients with unfavorable prognosis: perception of the attitudes of a group of doctors and nurses. Professioni Infermieristiche 2012, 65(3):143–153. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref045] 45.Nakajima N, Hata Y, Onishi H, Ishida M: The evaluation of the relationship between the level of disclosure of cancer in terminally ill patients with cancer and the quality of terminal care in these patients and their families using the Support Team Assessment Schedule. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® 2013, 30(4):370–376. doi: 10.1177/1049909112452466 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref046] 46.Glaser J, Nouri S, Fernandez A, Sudore RL, Schillinger D, Klein-Fedyshin M, et al. : Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures: an updated systematic review. Medical Decision Making 2020, 40(2):119–143. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19896348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref047] 47.Smith TJ, Dow LA, Virago EA, Khatcheressian J, Matsuyama R, Lyckholm LJ: A pilot trial of decision aids to give truthful prognostic and treatment information to chemotherapy patients with advanced cancer. The journal of supportive oncology 2011, 9(2):79. doi: 10.1016/j.suponc.2010.12.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref048] 48.Yun YH, Lee MK, Park S, Lee JL, Park J, Choi YS, et al. : Use of a decision aid to help caregivers discuss terminal disease status with a family member with cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2011, 29(36):4811–4819. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.3870 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref049] 49.Volk RJ, Lowenstein LM, Leal VB, Escoto KH, Cantor SB, Munden RF, et al. : Effect of a patient decision aid on lung cancer screening decision-making by persons who smoke: a randomized clinical tria l. JAMA network open 2020, 3(1):e1920362–e1920362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref050] 50.Keinki C, Zowalla R, Wiesner M, Koester MJ, Huebner J: Understandability of patient information booklets for patients with cancer. Journal of Cancer Education 2018, 33:517–527. doi: 10.1007/s13187-016-1121-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0301586.ref051] 51.Ochieng J, Ibingira C, Buwembo W, Munabi I, Kiryowa H, Kitara D, et al. : Informed consent in clinical practice; Patients’ experiences and perspectives following surgery. Submitted to BMC Medical Ethics- In press 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Informed consent in cancer clinical care: Perspectives of healthcare professionals on information disclosure at a tertiary institution in Uganda

Rebecca Kampi

Clement Okello

Joseph Ochieng

Erisa Sabakaki Mwaka

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Materials and methods

Participants

Data collection

Data management and analysis

Ethical considerations

Results

Table 1. Demographic characteristics.

Table 2. Themes and key findings.

Information disclosure to patients

Informed consent practices

Barriers to optimal information disclosure during the informed consent process

Recommendations for improving the consenting process for cancer care

Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Conclusion

Best practices

Educational implications

Research agenda

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Luca Valera

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Luca Valera

Roles

Acceptance letter

Luca Valera

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases