Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24902923›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2014

Organizational and physician factors associated with patient enrollment in cancer clinical trials.

Sara R Jacobs, Bryan J Weiner, Bryce B Reeve, Morris Weinberger, Lori M Minasian, Marjorie J Good

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Assessment of Karnofsky (KPS) and WHO (WHO-PS) performance scores in brain tumour patients: the role of clinician bias.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Sara R JacobsDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA RTI International, Public Health Research Division, Durham, NC, USA sjacobs@rti.org.
Bryan J WeinerDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Bryce B ReeveDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Morris WeinbergerDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Durham Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Department of Veterans Affairs, Durham, NC, USA.
Lori M MinasianDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Marjorie J GoodDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.

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

backgroundOur purpose was to identify physicians' individual characteristics, attitudes, and organizational contextual factors associated with higher enrollment of patients in cancer clinical trials among physician participants in the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP). We hypothesized that physicians' individual characteristics, such as age, medical specialty, tenure, CCOP organizational factors (i.e. policies and procedures to encourage enrollment), and attitudes toward participating in CCOP would directly determine enrollment. We also hypothesized that physicians' characteristics and CCOP organizational factors would influence physicians' attitudes toward participating in CCOP, which in turn would predict enrollment.

methodsWe evaluated enrollment in National Cancer Institute-sponsored cancer clinical trials in 2011 among 481 physician participants using Structural Equation Modeling. The data sources include CCOP Annual Progress Reports, two surveys of CCOP administrators and physician participants, and the American Medical Association Masterfile.

resultsPhysicians with more positive attitudes toward participating in CCOP enrolled more patients than physicians with less positive attitudes. In addition, physicians who practiced in CCOPs that had more supportive policies and practices in place to encourage enrollment (i.e. offered trainings, provided support to screen and enroll patients, gave incentives to enroll patients, instituted minimum accrual expectations) also significantly enrolled more patients. Physician status as CCOP Principal Investigator had a positive direct effect on enrollment, while physician age and non-oncology medical specialty had negative direct effects on enrollment. Neither physicians' characteristics nor CCOP organizational factors indirectly influenced enrollment through an effect on physician attitudes.

conclusionWe examined whether individual physicians' characteristics and attitudes, as well as CCOP organizational factors, influenced patient enrollment in cancer clinical trials among CCOP physicians. Physician attitudes and CCOP organizational factors had positive direct effects, but not indirect effects, on physician enrollment of patients. Our results could be used to develop physician-directed strategies aimed at increasing involvement in clinical research. For example, administrators may want to ensure physicians have access to support staff to help screen and enroll patients or institute minimum accrual expectations. Our results also highlight the importance of recruiting physicians for volunteer clinical research programs whose attitudes and values align with programmatic goals. Given that physician involvement is a key determinant of patient enrollment in clinical trials, these interventions could expand the overall number of patients involved in cancer research. These strategies will be increasingly important as the CCOP network continues to evolve.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPatient SelectionAdultAge FactorsAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleGeneral SurgeryHematologyHumansMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)NeoplasmsPhysiciansRadiation OncologyCancerclinical trial enrollmentCommunity Clinical Oncology ProgramNational Cancer Institute Oncology Research Programorganizational design featuresStructural Equation Modeling

Identifiers

PMID24902923
PMCPMC4156916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.