Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23295315›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials2013

Achieving high cancer control trial enrollment in the community setting: an analysis of the Community Clinical Oncology Program.

Sara R Jacobs, Bryan J Weiner, Lori M Minasian, Marjorie J Good

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03243396 (Building and Sustaining Interventions for Children), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03243396 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Building and Sustaining Interventions for Children (BASIC): Task-sharing Mental Health Care in Low-resource Settings

TypeinterventionalSponsorDuke UniversityRan2018 to 2024Enrolled956ConditionsGrief, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, DepressionArmsTrauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sara R JacobsDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7411, USA. jacobssr@live.unc.edu
Bryan J Weiner
Lori M Minasian
Marjorie J Good

Funding

Cancer Training GrantR25CA116339 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BASCH, ETHAN M., REEVE, BRYCE B · 2008 to 2017
$4.0M
Implementing Systemic Interventions to Close the Discovery-Delivery GapR01CA124402 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI WEINER, BRYAN J. · 2007 to 2012
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA124402NCI NIH HHS R01CA124402NCI NIH HHS R25 CA116339NCI NIH HHS R25CA116339
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining the factors that lead to successful enrollment of patients in cancer control clinical trials is essential as cancer patients are often burdened with side effects such as pain, nausea, and fatigue. One promising intervention for increasing enrollment in cancer control trials is the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP). In this article, we examined CCOP staffing, policies, and procedures associated with enrollment in control trials. Data were obtained from three sources: the online CCOP, MB-CCOP, and Research Base Management System, CCOP Annual Progress Reports, and a survey of CCOP Administrators conducted in 2011. We analyzed cancer control trial accrual in 2011 among 46 CCOPs using multivariate regression. Three factors were significant predictors of accrual. First, having a team of staff dedicated to enrolling patients in control and prevention trials, compared to having no dedicated staff, was associated on average with an additional 30 patients enrolled in control trials (p<0.05). Second, CCOPs that recognized physicians for enrolling a large number of patients compared to CCOPs that did not recognize high enrolling physicians enrolled on average an additional 25 patients in control trials (p<0.05). Lastly, the number of cancer control trials available was also associated with enrollment (β=5.50, p<0.00). Our results indicate that CCOPs looking to increase enrollment in control trials should consider dedicating a team of staff to enroll patients in these types of trials. In addition, CCOPs or other volunteer research systems looking to increase physician participation should consider recognizing high enrolling physicians.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionClinical Trials as TopicCommunity NetworksCross-Sectional StudiesHumansNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)NeoplasmsProgram EvaluationResearch PersonnelUnited States

Identifiers

PMID23295315
PMCPMC3594576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.