Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26272451›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2015

Knowledge and attitudes regarding medical research studies among patients with breast cancer and gynecological diseases.

Michael P Lux, Thomas Hildebrandt, Sandra-Maria Knetzger, Michael G Schrauder, Sebastian M Jud, Alexander Hein, Claudia Rauh, Peter A Fasching, Matthias W Beckmann, Falk C Thiel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The effects of an educational program for non-physician health care providers regarding fertility preservation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cancer Health Literacy and Willingness to Participate in Cancer Research and Donate Bio-Specimens.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    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

10 authors.

Michael P LuxDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. michael.lux@uk-erlangen.de.
Thomas HildebrandtDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. thomas.hildebrandt@uk-erlangen.de.
Sandra-Maria KnetzgerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. sknetzger@yahoo.de.
Michael G SchrauderDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. michael.schrauder@uk-erlangen.de.
Sebastian M JudDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. sebastian.jud@uk-erlangen.de.
Alexander HeinDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. alexander.hein@uk-erlangen.de.
Claudia RauhDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. rauh.claudia@uk-erlangen.de.
Peter A FaschingDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. peter.fasching@uk-erlangen.de.
Matthias W BeckmannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. matthias.beckmann@uk-erlangen.de.
Falk C ThielDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. falk.thiel@uk-erlangen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical research studies are becoming increasingly important for optimizing the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. Participation in research studies can have many benefits for patients. In randomized and controlled clinical studies, they can receive the best possible medical care currently available. However, only a small proportion of patients nowadays are treated within the framework of medical research. The primary endpoint of this study was to discover what level of knowledge patients have about clinical studies and how they currently perceive them, in order to identify ways of optimizing the information provided about studies from the patients' point of view.

methodsThe study included 2546 patients (breast cancer 21.6%, gynecological cancer 8.3%, obstetrics 32.7%, endometriosis 7.8%, fertility treatment 3.2%, other benign gynecological illnesses 19.2%, no information for 7.2%) in the outpatient clinic (45.2%) and in the in-patient sector (54.8%) at the Department of Gynecology at Erlangen University Hospital and associated centers. In the single-center study, conducted between January 2011 and January 2012, the patients were asked about their level of knowledge regarding the background to medical research studies and the ways in which they are carried out and used. The patients were also asked how they perceived medical studies and how they thought study conditions might be optimized. The three-page questionnaire was included in the feedback sheet received by patients as part of the hospital's quality management system.

resultsAs a whole, the group only had moderate knowledge about clinical studies. A majority of the respondents considered that studies were valuable (91.6%), but only a few were also willing to take part in them (58.4%). Knowledge and willingness to participate strongly depended on age (P < 0.001), educational level (P < 0.001) and patient group (P < 0.001). Most patients would prefer to decide about participating in studies through a discussion with their outpatient physicians.

conclusionsThe information that patients have about clinical studies affects whether they participate in them. It is therefore extremely important for patients to be well informed, for their anxieties about participation to be relieved, and for the benefits of participation to be explained to them.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomedical ResearchBreast NeoplasmsClinical Studies as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGenital Diseases, FemaleHumansMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26272451
PMCPMC4535277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.