ArticleContemporary clinical trials2010
Patient internet use surrounding cancer clinical trials: clinician perceptions and responses.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers to non-small cell lung cancer trial eligibility.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018Article
- Consumer input into research: the Australian Cancer Trials website.Health research policy and systems · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinician perceptions of patient internet use related to clinical trials are not well documented. This exploratory study surveyed how cancer care providers at one NCI-designated cancer center viewed patient internet use surrounding cancer trials, including whether it affected patient decision making regarding trial enrollment. The sample included 20 oncologists (59%) and 14 (41%) nurses (n=34). Most clinicians (n=26; 76%) perceived the internet as having an effect on whether or not patients decided to enroll in a cancer trial. Two thirds (n=17; 65%) felt that this effect was positive, including in terms of enhancing patient knowledge of, access to, and enrollment in trials. Clinicians were asked if they ever discussed with their patients the topic of going online to find out more about cancer trials. Over half (n=18; 58%) who responded (n=31) to this item said yes; the rest (n=13; 42%) said no. The majority (n=10; 77%) in the "no" category were among those who reported that the internet had an effect on patient decision making. These data provisionally suggest that clinicians may see the internet as having mostly a positive effect on patient decision making about cancer trials, but that their communication efforts with patients do not always logically follow from this perception. Provider-patient discussion about internet use may be an opportunity for clinicians to contribute to improved patient knowledge of and enrollment in cancer trials. More research is needed to confirm and explain the gap between clinician perception and communication regarding trial-related internet use by cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.