ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2014
Organizational and physician factors associated with patient enrollment in cancer clinical trials.
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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multicenter survey on BRAF screening for the implementation of perioperative cancer genomic medicine for resectable colorectal oligometastases.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Understanding recruitment challenges in Swiss oncology trials: Patient voices from focus groups.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- Attitude of patients with liver cancer toward clinical drug trials: empirical qualitative research.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Impact of an Oncology Clinical Pharmacist Intervention on Clinical Trial Enrollment in The US Oncology Network's MYLUNG Consortium.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2024Article
- Strategies for increasing accrual in cancer clinical trials: What is the evidence?Cancer medicine · 2024Review
- Navigating the challenges of clinical trial professionals in the healthcare sector.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Trainee Evaluations of Preparedness for Clinical Trials in Medical Oncology-A National Questionnaire.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Access to urologists for participation in research: An analysis of NCI's Community Oncology Research Program landscape survey.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Article
- Barriers for cancer clinical trial enrollment: A qualitative study of the perspectives of healthcare providers.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Article
- Decision-making about clinical trial options among older patients with metastatic cancer who have exhausted standard therapies.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2022Article
- Review
- 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 · 2021Article
- Article
- Understanding the Barriers to Pediatric Oncologist Engagement and Accrual to Clinical Trials in National Cancer Institute-Designated Community Oncology Research Programs.JCO oncology practice · 2020Article
- Age and race distribution in patients in phase III oncology clinical trials.American journal of translational research · 2020Article
- Barriers to accrual and enrollment in brain tumor trials.Neuro-oncology · 2019Review
- Disparities in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia (AML) clinical trial enrollment.Leukemia & lymphoma · 2019Article
- Science in the Heartland: Exploring determinants of offering cancer clinical trials in rural-serving community urology practices.Urologic oncology · 2019Article
- Incorporating Digital Tools to Improve Clinical Trial Infrastructure: A White Paper From the Digital Engagement Committee of SWOG.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2018Article
- Barriers to participation in clinical trials: a physician survey.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.