ArticleWestern journal of nursing research2019
A National Study of Oncology Nurses Discussing Cancer Clinical Trials With Patients.
Article in Western journal of nursing research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Culturally Adapted Shared Decision-Making Tool for Breast Cancer Clinical Trials in China: A Nurse-Led Approach.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- The Clinical Trial Referral Ambassadors program to promote clinical trial referrals within rural community hospitals: A formative program evaluation study.Contemporary clinical trials · 2026Article
- Development of a Japanese Scale that Evaluates the Level of Nursing Support Provided to Patients for Decision-Making in Cancer Clinical Trials.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Randomized trial of a web-based nurse education intervention to increase discussion of clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the United States less than 10% of cancer patients engage in clinical trials. Although most oncology nurses have multiple opportunities to discuss clinical trials with patients, barriers including attitudes and social norms may impede these discussions. Guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior, we developed and evaluated measures for attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control of nurses for discussing clinical trials with cancer patients. Of the 18,000 Oncology Nurse Society members invited, 1,964 completed the survey. Structural equation modeling and internal consistency reliability were used to evaluate items and constructs. We found that overall model fit and reliability was good: Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI) = 0.91, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05; attitudes, 21 items, alpha = 0.84; perceived behavioral control, 10 items, alpha = 0.85; and subjective norms, 9 items, alpha = 0.89. These measures of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control show good reliability and initial evidence of validity.
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.