ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017
What advanced cancer patients with limited treatment options know about clinical research: a qualitative study.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Decision-making about clinical trial options among older patients with metastatic cancer who have exhausted standard therapies.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2022Article
- Development and Evaluation of a Decision Aid to Support Patients' Participatory Decision-Making for Tumor-Specific and Palliative Therapy for Advanced Cancer: Protocol for a Pre-Post Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Women's Experiences of Promotion and Tenure in Academic Medicine and Potential Implications for Gender Disparities in Career Advancement: A Qualitative Analysis.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Nothing to lose: a grounded theory study of patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives of being involved in the consent process for oncology trials with non-curative intent.BMC palliative care · 2020Article
- Progression-free survival is a suboptimal predictor for overall survival among metastatic solid tumour clinical trials.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2020Review
- Before Consent: Qualitative Analysis of Deliberations of Patients With Advanced Cancer About Early-Phase Clinical Trials.JCO oncology practice · 2020Article
- Approaches to decision-making among late-stage melanoma patients: a multifactorial investigation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Article
- An exploratory typology of provider responses that encourage and discourage conversation about complementary and integrative medicine during routine oncology visits.Patient education and counseling · 2015Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDiscussions between oncologists and advanced cancer patients (ACPs) may touch on the complex issue of clinical trial participation. Numerous initiatives have sought to improve the quality of these potentially difficult conversations. However, we have limited data about what ACPs know about clinical research as they enter such discussions as, to date, such research has focused on the period following informed consent. This study examines ACPs' understanding of clinical research in the treatment period before consent.
methodsWe conducted in-depth interviews with adult ACPs with limited treatment options at four clinics in an academic medical center. So as not to influence patients' perspectives, interviewers probed patients' knowledge of clinical research only if the patient first brought up the topic. Interviews (40-60 min) were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically and via quantitative content analysis by an interdisciplinary team.
resultsOf 78 patients recruited, 56 (72%) spontaneously brought up the topic of clinical research during interview and are included in this analysis. Qualitative thematic analysis and quantitative content analysis revealed that patients' knowledge varied in terms of (1) accuracy and (2) specificity (level of detail). ACPs who spoke with high specificity were not always accurate, and ACPs with accurate knowledge included both high- and low-specificity speakers.
conclusionsACPs' knowledge of clinical research is variable. Patients who can discuss the technical details of their care may or may not understand the broader purpose and procedures of clinical trials. Understanding this variability is important for improving patient-provider communication about clinical research and supporting efforts to provide individualized care for ACPs.
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.