ArticleThe oncologist2012
Evaluation of an educational program to improve communication with patients about early-phase trial participation.
Article in The oncologist, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04407676 (A Randomised Controlled Trial of Enhanced Informed Consent Compared to Standard Informed Consent To Improve Patient Understanding of Early Phase Oncology Clinical Trials), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
A Randomised Controlled Trial of Enhanced Informed Consent Compared to Standard Informed Consent To Improve Patient Understanding of Early Phase Oncology Clinical Trials
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- A systematic review of training programmes for recruiters to randomised controlled trials.Trials · 2015Pooled it
- Transforming patient recruitment in clinical trials: Communication training to manage uncertainties about risks and benefits.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Design, planning and implementation lessons learnt from a surgical multi-centre randomised controlled trial.Trials · 2019Article
- Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2019Article
- Communication interventions in adult and pediatric oncology: A scoping review and analysis of behavioral targets.PloS one · 2019Article
- Training health professionals to recruit into challenging randomized controlled trials improved confidence: the development of the QuinteT randomized controlled trial recruitment training intervention.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2018Article
- Palliative Care and Phase 1 Trials: Intervention to Improve Quality of Life and Provide Education .Clinical journal of oncology nursing · 2017Article
- "Get the Consent"-Nonfinancial Conflict of Interest in Academic Clinical Research.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017Article
- Article
- For the Benefit of Others: Reasons Why Women with Breast Cancer Participate in RCTs.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Article
- A pilot study of simple interventions to improve informed consent in clinical research: feasibility, approach, and results.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2015Article
- American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: the critical role of phase I trials in cancer research and treatment.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2015Article
- Promoting Factors and Barriers to Participation in Early Phase Clinical Trials: Patients Perspectives.Journal of community medicine & health education · 2014Article
- Drivers and barriers to patient participation in RCTs.British journal of cancer · 2013Article
- Communicating about phase I trials: objective disclosures are only a first step.The oncologist · 2012Article
- Digital Tools and Strategies for Engaging Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiscussing early-phase cancer trials is challenging; most offer little personal benefit to patients with life-limiting illnesses who frequently have a poor understanding of and misconceptions about the therapeutic aims. We evaluated an evidence-based training program aimed at enhancing communication.
methodsPrior to and after the intervention, 47 health care professionals (HCPs) experienced in early-phase trial recruitment were audio taped discussing trials with patient simulators who completed postinterview evaluations. Coders rated the interviews for the presence of information areas required to elicit ethical consent. HCPs reported their self-confidence on 15 different aspects of trial discussion.
resultsSignificant objective and subjective improvements in communication were found after the workshop. Analyses of audio tapes showed positive shifts in: establishing the patient's knowledge of their prognosis (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; p = .002), discussing symptomatic care (OR, 3.8; p < .001), the aims of the trial (OR, 2.6; p =.002), and the unlikelihood of medical benefit (OR, 3.0; p = .021). Patient simulator ratings showed improvements in: the awareness of palliative care and symptom control (OR, 2.1; p = .004), the voluntariness of participation (OR, 3.7; p = .015), the opportunity to ask questions (OR, 2.9; p = .044), and the time to consider participation (OR, 6.1; p = .009). HCPs' self-confidence increased significantly for all 15 items (OR range, 1.5-2.9; p ≤ .001).
conclusionThis short, intensive workshop changed communication skills competency and self-efficacy in ways likely to promote valid, ethically informed consent from patients contemplating trial entry.
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.