Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32009456›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2020

Discordant attitudes and beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation between physicians, research staff, and cancer patients.

Grace C Hillyer, Melissa Beauchemin, Dawn L Hershman, Moshe Kelsen, Frances L Brogan, Rossy Sandoval, Karen M Schmitt, Andria Reyes, Mary Beth Terry, Andrew B Lassman and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Benefits of Participation in Clinical Trials: An Umbrella Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. The Advanced Practice Role in Clinical Trials: Past, Present, and Future.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Role of Oncology Advanced Practitioners to Enhance Clinical Research.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2022
    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

11 authors.

Grace C HillyerDepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0467-075X
Melissa BeaucheminHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Dawn L HershmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Moshe KelsenHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4646-6725
Frances L BroganHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Rossy SandovalHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Karen M SchmittHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Andria ReyesHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Mary Beth TerryDepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Andrew B LassmanHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Gary K SchwartzHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Tumor Biology and Microenvironment ProgramP30CA013696 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI Parisa Tehranifar · 1985 to 2026
$115.3M
True Metal fac coreP30ES009089 · NIEHS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI MATTHEW S PERZANOWSKI · 1998 to 2026
$44.7M
Columbia University NCI Community Oncology Research ProgramUG1CA189960 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Jennifer E. Amengual, Lisa A. Kachnic · 2014 to 2026
$12.7M
Training Program in Cancer-related Population SciencesT32CA094061 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI NEUGUT, ALFRED I., TERRY, MARY BETH · 2017 to 2021
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA013696NCI NIH HHS T32 CA094061NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189960NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES009089
6 · The paper itself

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

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical Trials as TopicCommunicationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient ParticipationPatient SelectionPhysiciansResearch PersonnelCancer clinical trialsclinical trials participationhealth educationpatient/provider communication

Identifiers

PMID32009456
PMCPMC7211123

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.