Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28923028›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2017

Access to clinical trials among oncology patients: results of a cross sectional survey.

Mariko Carey, Allison W Boyes, Rochelle Smits, Jamie Bryant, Amy Waller, Ian Olver

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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.

Mariko CareyPriority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine & Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, W4, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia. mariko.carey@newcastle.edu.au.
Allison W BoyesPriority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine & Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, W4, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Rochelle SmitsPriority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine & Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, W4, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Jamie BryantPriority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine & Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, W4, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Amy WallerPriority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine & Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, W4, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Ian OlverSamson Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trials are necessary for the advancement of cancer treatment and care, however low rates of participation in such trials limit the generalisability of findings. The objective of this study was to examine the proportion of medical oncology outpatients in Australia who are invited and consent to participate in clinical trials and the factors associated with this.

methodsA sample of adult medical oncology patients was recruited from three Australian cancer treatment centres. Consenting patients completed two paper-and-pencil surveys; one at the time of consent and another approximately 1 month later. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to explore factors associated with invitation and participation in a trial.

resultsThirty-eight percent (n = 146) of the 383 participants reported they had been invited to take part in a clinical trial. Of those invited, 93% reported consenting to participate in the trial, with the majority indicating that they did not regret their decision (89%). Treatment centre and time since diagnosis were significantly associated with being invited to take part in a clinical trial. None of the factors examined were associated with clinical trial consent rates.

conclusionsThe main barrier to clinical trial participation is not being invited to do so, with the centre the patient attends being a modifiable determinant of whether or not they are invited. Increasing the resources available to treatment centres to ensure all patients are offered participation in trials they are eligible for may help to improve rates of trial participation.

Indexed as

AgedClinical Trials as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient ParticipationCancerControlled clinical trialsInformed consentNeoplasmsPatient educationPatient participationRandomized

Identifiers

PMID28923028
PMCPMC5604159

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.