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.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2020Trial
- Feasibility, acceptability, and usability of a patient decision aid for participation in the DAHANCA 35 proton radiotherapy trial: A qualitative study.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Cancer clinical trial recruitment for patients from rural areas: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Knowledge of Clinical Trials Among US Cancer Survivors: Cross-Sectional Study of HINTS-SEER Data.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Improving Patient Engagement in Phase 2 Clinical Trials With a Trial-Specific Patient Decision Aid: Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to recruitment of rural patients to cancer clinical trials.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of breast and lung cancer survival rates and clinical trial enrollments among rural and urban patients in Georgia.Oncology research · 2024Article
- Understanding the Current Landscape of Health Literacy Interventions within Health Systems.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Development of a Patient Decision Aid for the DAHANCA 35 Proton Radiotherapy Trial: An Iterative Development Process with User-Centered Design Elements.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.