Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28488050›Full record

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.

Sarah B Garrett, Christopher J Koenig, Laura Trupin, Fay J Hlubocky, Christopher K Daugherty, Anne Reinert, Pamela Munster, Daniel Dohan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2019
    Article
  9. Observational
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.

Sarah B GarrettUniversity of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Christopher J KoenigUniversity of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Laura TrupinUniversity of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Fay J HlubockyThe University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Christopher K DaughertyThe University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Anne ReinertUniversity of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Pamela MunsterUniversity of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Daniel DohanUniversity of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. Daniel.Dohan@ucsf.edu.

Funding

Before Consent: Cancer Patients' Deliberations about Early Phase Clinical TrialsR01CA152195 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI DOHAN, DANIEL P. · 2010 to 2014
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA152195
6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchKnowledgeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCommunicationComprehensionDecision MakingFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasmsPatient Education as TopicAcademic medical centersBiomedical researchDecision-makingMetastatic diseaseNeoplasmsPatient comprehension

Identifiers

PMID28488050
PMCPMC5680157

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.