ArticleTrials2012
Removing barriers to participation in clinical trials, a conceptual framework and retrospective chart review study.
Article in Trials, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- "When Offered to Participate": A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Agreement to Participate in Cancer Clinical Trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Pooled it
- Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Clinical Trial Generalizability Assessment in the Big Data Era: A Review.Clinical and translational science · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Structural, Clinical, and Physician and Patient Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2019Pooled it
- Precision Recruitment and Engagement of Individuals at Risk for Diabetes and Hypertension in Clinical Trials (PREDHICT): A Randomized Trial for an E-Persuasive Mobile Application to Inform Decision Making about Clinical Trials.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- A systems framework for improving clinical trial recruitment: A literature-informed approach.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Ineligible, Unaware, or Uninterested? Associations Between Underrepresented Patient Populations and Retention in the Pathway to Cancer Clinical Trial Enrollment.JCO oncology practice · 2022Article
- Are We Scared of Clinical Trials if Not Sufficiently Informed and Educated?Advances in medical education and practice · 2022Article
- Participation of rural patients in clinical trials at a multisite academic medical center.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Feasibility of Prehabilitation Prior to Breast Cancer Surgery: A Mixed-Methods Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Barriers to non-small cell lung cancer trial eligibility.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018Article
- The relationship between eligibility criteria and adverse events in randomized controlled trials of hematologic malignancies.Leukemia · 2017Article
- The Effect of Message Framing on African American Women's Intention to Participate in Health-Related Research.Journal of health communication · 2016Article
- Experiences of recruiting to a pilot trial of Cardiac Rehabilitation In patients with Bowel cancer (CRIB) with an embedded process evaluation: lessons learned to improve recruitment.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2015Article
- Assessing the challenges of multi-scope clinical research sites: an example from NIH HIV/AIDS clinical trials networks.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2014Article
- Lack of timely accrual information in oncology clinical trials: a cross-sectional analysis.Trials · 2014Article
- Barriers and challenges to global clinical cancer research.The oncologist · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnrollment in interventional therapeutic clinical trials is a small fraction of all patients who might participate given reasonable access.
methodsA hierarchical approach is utilized in measuring staged participation from trial availability to patient enrollment. Our framework suggests that concern for justice comes in the design and eligibility criteria for clinical trials; attention to beneficence is given in the eligibility and physician triage stages. The remaining four stages rely on respect for persons. An example is given where reasons for nonparticipation or barriers to participation in prostate cancer clinical trials are examined within the framework. In addition, medical oncology patients with an initial six month consultation are tracked from one stage to the next by race using the framework to assess participation comparability.
resultsWe illustrated seven transitions from being a patient to enrollment in a clinical trial in a small study of prostate cancer cases who consulted SKCCC Medical Oncology Department in early 2010. Pilot data suggest transition probabilities as follows: 65% availability, 84% eligibility, 92% patient triage, 89% trials discussed, 45% patient interested, 63% patient consented, and 92% patient enrolled. The average transition probability was 77.7%. The average transition probability, patient-trial-fit was 50%; opportunity was 51%, and acceptance was 66.7%. Trial availability, patient interest and patient consented were three transitions that were below the average; none were statistically significant.
conclusionsThe framework may serve to streamline comprehensive reporting of clinical trial participation to the benefit of patients and the ethical conduct of clinical trials.
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.