Description

Many newer cancer drugs are approved before uncertainties with their underlying clinical trial evidence have been adequately studied, in turn making it difficult to accurately determine the drug's benefits and harms. Prescription drug information rarely communicates these uncertainties. In a nationally representative sample of US adults, this study will evaluate the effect of using brief statements to communicate different sources of uncertainty about the benefits and harms of new cancer drugs on participants' decisions and understanding.

In the pre-intervention phase, participants will be given information about a hypothetical new drug approved for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Participants will be asked how likely they would be to take the drug, and how certain they are that the drug will work. Participants will then be randomized to 1 of 5 statements about a source of uncertainty with the drug's evidence that were based on the most common sources of uncertainties with new cancer drugs that are cited in FDA approval decisions: (1) single-arm trial designs, (2) limited study populations (i.e., generalizability of clinical trial evidence), and (3) limited study durations (i.e., long-term benefits and harms). Two additional uncertainties were also included that are frequently mentioned in the scientific literature: (4) the use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints to support new cancer drug approvals, and (5) uncertain treatment effect size (i.e., the magnitude of therapeutic benefit). The post-intervention questions will re-assess participants' decision making and perceptions of uncertainty, as well as their understanding of the uncertainty communicated in the statement.