ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2020
A Pilot Study Determining Comprehension and the Acceptability of a Cancer Research Study Website for Cancer Patients and Caregivers.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breast and Cervical Cancer Gaps in Displaced Lebanese Women in Syria.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- What influences trust in and understanding of clinical trials? An analysis of information and communication technology use and online health behavior from the Health Information National Trends Survey.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Article
- Personality and psychological health in caregivers of older relatives: a case-control study.Aging & mental health · 2021Article
- A Web-Based Intervention to Increase Smokers' Intentions to Participate in a Cessation Study Offered at the Point of Lung Screening: Factorial Randomized Trial.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Untangling interactivity's effects: The role of cognitive absorption, perceived visual informativeness, and cancer information overload.Patient education and counseling · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this pilot study was to determine if a cancer research study website increased comprehension among patients and caregivers and if website evaluations differed across patient and caregiver groups. Participants (N = 200) were cancer patients and caregivers living in the USA. Comprehension was determined by the number of correct responses to a series of questions about key characteristics of cancer research studies that are frequently unknown or misinterpreted by patients and/or caregivers. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to determine participant evaluations across four domains: perceived website credibility, perceived website attractiveness, perceived information effectiveness, and perceived information clarity. Patients and caregivers perceived the website as highly credible and attractive and the information as both easy to understand and moderately effective in helping them make decisions about CCTs. Qualitative feedback underscores the importance of testimonials to website credibility. However, the range in the number of correct responses of certain items across participants coupled with discrepancies in comprehension between patients and caregivers suggests the need for stronger mechanisms evaluating knowledge outcomes.
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.