Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29862441›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2019

Evaluating Adaptation of a Cancer Clinical Trial Decision Aid for Rural Cancer Patients: A Mixed-Methods Approach.

Swati Pathak, Nerissa George, Denise Monti, Kathy Robinson, Mary C Politi

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Prioritisation of treatment goals among older patients with non-curable cancer: the OPTion randomised controlled trial in Dutch primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Swati PathakDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, SIU School of Medicine, Springfield, IL, USA. spathak57@siumed.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8269-9983
Nerissa GeorgeDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Denise MontiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Kathy RobinsonDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, SIU School of Medicine, Springfield, IL, USA.
Mary C PolitiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. mpoliti@wustl.edu.

Funding

Training and Education CoreP20CA192987 · NCI · SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY SCH OF MED · PI BRARD, LAURENT · 2015 to 2017
$653k
Training and Education ProgramP20CA192966 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI JAMES, AIMEE S · 2015 to 2017
$527k
Addressing Rural Cancer Health Disparities: A SCC-SIUSM Partnership. Grant number: 5P20CA192987-02NCI NIH HHS P20 CA192966NCI NIH HHS P20 CA192987
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rural-residing cancer patients often do not participate in clinical trials. Many patients misunderstand cancer clinical trials and their rights as participant. The purpose of this study is to modify a previously developed cancer clinical trials decision aid (DA), incorporating the unique needs of rural populations, and test its impact on knowledge and decision outcomes. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I recruited 15 rural-residing cancer survivors in a qualitative usability study. Participants navigated the original DA and provided feedback regarding usability and implementation in rural settings. Phase II recruited 31 newly diagnosed rural-residing cancer patients. Patients completed a survey before and after using the revised DA, R-CHOICES. Primary outcomes included decisional conflict, decision self-efficacy, knowledge, communication self-efficacy, and attitudes towards and willingness to consider joining a trial. In phase I, the DA was viewed positively by rural-residing cancer survivors. Participants provided important feedback about factors rural-residing patients consider when thinking about trial participation. In phase II, after using R-CHOICES, participants had higher certainty about their choice (mean post-test = 3.10 vs. pre-test = 2.67; P = 0.025) and higher trial knowledge (mean percentage correct at post-test = 73.58 vs. pre-test = 57.77; P < 0.001). There was no significant change in decision self-efficacy, communication self-efficacy, and attitudes towards or willingness to join trials. The R-CHOICES improved rural-residing patients' knowledge of cancer clinical trials and reduced conflict about making a trial decision. More research is needed on ways to further support decisions about trial participation among this population.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorDecision Support TechniquesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient ParticipationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCancer SurvivorsCommunicationDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient Education as TopicCancer clinical trialDecision aidRural health

Identifiers

PMID29862441
PMCPMC6277228

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.