Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23511558›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2013

Drivers and barriers to patient participation in RCTs.

V Jenkins, V Farewell, D Farewell, J Darmanin, J Wagstaff, C Langridge, L Fallowfield, TTT Steering committee

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05654103 (Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing endoAVF Versus surgAVF), which is not on this map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT05654103 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing endoAVF Versus surgAVF

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, Los AngelesRan2024 to 2027Enrolled90ConditionsEnd Stage Renal Disease on DialysisArmsendoAVF, surgAVF
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Exploring patient-reported barriers to participating in proton therapy clinical trials.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024
    Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

V JenkinsSussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QG, UK. val@sussex.ac.uk
V Farewell
D Farewell
J Darmanin
J Wagstaff
C Langridge
L Fallowfield
TTT Steering committee
Brighton and Sussex Medical School · GBCardiff University · GBNIHR Clinical Research Network · GBUniversity of Sussex · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UKMedical Research Council G0601724Medical Research Council G0902108Medical Research Council MC_U105261167Medical Research Council U105261167
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment of patients into randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is essential for treatment evaluation. Appreciation of the barriers and drivers towards participation is important for trial design, communication and information provision.

methodAs part of an intervention to facilitate effective multidisciplinary team communication about RCTs, cancer patients completed two study-specific questionnaires following trial discussions. One questionnaire examined reasons why patients accepted or declined trial entry, the other perceptions about their health-care professionals' (HCPs) information giving.

resultsQuestionnaires were completed by 74% (358/486) of patients approached; of these 81% (291/358) had joined an RCT, 16% (56/358) had declined and 3% (11/358) were undecided. Trial participation status of the 128 patients not returning questionnaires is unknown. Trial acceptance was not dependent on disease stage, tumour type, sex or age. Satisfaction with trial information and HCPs' communication was generally very good, irrespective of participation decisions. The primary reason given for trial acceptance was altruism (40%; 110/275), and for declining, trust in the doctor (28%; 12/43). Decliners preferred doctors to choose their treatment rather than be randomised (54% vs 39%; P<0.027). Acceptors were more likely to perceive doctors as wanting them to join trials (54% vs 30%; P<0.001). Trial type, that is, standard treatment vs novel or different durations of treatment, also influenced acceptance rates.

conclusionThe drivers and barriers to trial participation are partly related to trial design. Unease about randomisation and impact of duration on treatment efficacy are barriers for some. Altruism and HCPs' perceived attitudes are powerful influencing factors.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient ParticipationPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID23511558
PMCPMC3629425
OpenAlexW2064601736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.