ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2020
Discordant attitudes and beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation between physicians, research staff, and cancer patients.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cancer Clinical Trial Participant Selection: Does Provider Implicit Bias Play a Role?Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Patient and Caregiver Reported Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation: A Scoping Review.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Understanding recruitment challenges in Swiss oncology trials: Patient voices from focus groups.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- Development of a clinical trial knowledge management application for community oncology.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Factors that influence clinical trial participation for oncology patients in Australia: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Adherence to Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Recommendations in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.Cancers · 2025Article
- Exploring clinical trials awareness, information access and participation amongst Australians with ovarian cancer: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Impact of an Oncology Clinical Pharmacist Intervention on Clinical Trial Enrollment in The US Oncology Network's MYLUNG Consortium.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2024Article
- 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
- Racial and ethnic disparities in knowledge, attitudes, and invitation to participate in clinical trials among cancer survivors in the United States: An analysis of the 2020 U.S. HINTS.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Children's Oncology Group's 2023 blueprint for research: Diversity and health disparities.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2023Article
- Research Silos in Cancer Disparities: Obstacles to Improving Clinical Outcomes for Underserved Patient Populations.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023Article
- Review
- Associations Between Race/Ethnicity, Language, and Enrollment on Cancer Research Studies.The oncologist · 2023Article
- Through the Lens of Patient Partners: Challenges in Accrual of Older Adults to NCI Clinical Trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2022Article
- Benefits of Participation in Clinical Trials: An Umbrella Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Patient Experience in Clinical Trials: Quality of Life, Financial Burden, and Perception of Care in Patients With Multiple Myeloma or Lymphoma Enrolled on Clinical Trials Compared With Standard Care.JCO oncology practice · 2022Article
- The Advanced Practice Role in Clinical Trials: Past, Present, and Future.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2022Article
- Participation in and withdrawal from cancer clinical trials: A survey of clinical research coordinators.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2022Article
- Role of Oncology Advanced Practitioners to Enhance Clinical Research.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsEssential to bringing innovative cancer treatments to patients is voluntary participation in clinical trials but approximately 8% of American cancer patients are enrolled onto a trial. We used a domain-oriented framework to assess barriers to cancer clinical trial enrollment.
methodsPhysicians (MD, DO, fellows, residents) and research staff (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, staff and research nurses, clinical assistants, and program coordinators) involved in clinical research at a comprehensive cancer center completed an online survey in 2017; adult cancer patients not currently enrolled in a trial were interviewed in 2018. To inform the construct of our physician/staff and patient surveys and to assess barriers to clinical trial enrollment, we first conducted in-depth interviews among 14 key informants representing medical, hematologic, gynecologic, neurologic, radiation oncology, as well as members of the clinical research team (one clinical research coordinator, one research nurse practitioner). Perceived structural, provider- and patient-level barriers to clinical trial enrollment were assessed. Differences in perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs toward clinical trial enrollment between (1) physicians and staff, (2) patients by ethnicity, and (3) physicians/staff and patients were examined.
resultsIn total, 120 physicians/staff involved in clinical research (39.2% physicians, 60.8% staff; 48.0% overall response rate) and 150 cancer patients completed surveys. Nearly three-quarters of physician/staff respondents reported difficulty in keeping track of the eligibility criteria for open studies but was more often cited by physicians than staff (84.4% vs 64.3%,
conclusionOur findings indicate a wide gap between physician/staff and patient attitudes and beliefs about clinical trial enrollment and highlight the importance of focusing future initiatives to raise awareness of this incongruency. Reconciling these differences will require tailored education to reduce implicit biases and dispel misperceptions. Strategies to improve the quality of patient-provider communication and address infrastructure and resource issues are also needed to improve patient enrollment onto cancer clinical trials.
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.