Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32045067›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2020

Challenges Conveying Clinical Equipoise and Exploring Patient Treatment Preferences in an Oncology Trial Comparing Active Monitoring with Radiotherapy (ROAM/EORTC 1308).

Frances C Sherratt, Stephen L Brown, Brian J Haylock, Priya Francis, Helen Hickey, Carrol Gamble, Michael D Jenkinson, Bridget Young

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Role of adjuvant radiotherapy in atypical (WHO grade II) and anaplastic (WHO grade III) meningiomas: a systematic review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Ethical Considerations and Equipoise in Cancer Surgery.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Frances C SherrattInstitute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4147-9305
Stephen L BrownInstitute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Brian J HaylockClatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, United Kingdom.
Priya FrancisLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Helen HickeyLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Carrol GambleLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Michael D JenkinsonInstitute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Bridget YoungInstitute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.
University of Liverpool · GBClatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health HTA/12/173/14
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionProviding balanced information that emphasizes clinical equipoise (i.e., uncertainty regarding the relative merits of trial interventions) and exploring patient treatment preferences can improve informed consent and trial recruitment. Within a trial comparing adjuvant radiotherapy versus active monitoring following surgical resection for an atypical meningioma (ROAM/EORTC-1308), we explored patterns in communication and reasons why health practitioners may find it challenging to convey equipoise and explore treatment preferences. MATERIALS AND

methodsQualitative study embedded within ROAM/EORTC-1308. Data were collected on 40 patients and 18 practitioners from 13 U.K. sites, including audio recordings of 39 patients' trial consultations, 23 patient interviews, and 18 practitioner interviews. Qualitative analysis drew on argumentation theory.

resultsPractitioners acknowledged the importance of the research question that the trial aimed to answer. However, they often demonstrated a lack of equipoise in consultations, particularly with eligible patients who practitioners believed to be susceptible to side effects (e.g., cognitive impairment) or inconvenienced by radiotherapy. Practitioners elicited but rarely explored patient treatment preferences, especially if a patient expressed an initial preference for active monitoring. Concerns about coercing patients, loss of practitioner agency, and time constraints influenced communication in ways that were loaded against trial participation.

conclusionsWe identified several challenges that practitioners face in conveying equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences in oncology, and particularly neuro-oncology, trials with distinct management pathways. The findings informed communication about ROAM/EORTC-1308 and will be relevant to enhancing trial communication in future oncology trials. Qualitative studies embedded within trials can address difficulties with communication, thus improving informed consent and recruitment. ROAM/EORTC-1308 RCT: ISRCTN71502099. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncology trials can be challenging to recruit to, especially those that compare treatment versus monitoring. Conveying clinical equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences can enhance recruitment and patient understanding. This study focused on the challenges that practitioners encounter in trying to use such communication strategies and how practitioners may inadvertently impede patient recruitment and informed decision making. This article provides recommendations to support practitioners in balancing the content and presentation of trial management pathways. The results can inform training to optimize communication, especially for neuro-oncology trials and trials comparing markedly different management pathways.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient PreferenceHumansPatient SelectionQualitative ResearchTherapeutic EquipoiseClinical equipoiseClinical trialCommunicationNeuro-oncologyQualitativeRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID32045067
PMCPMC7160418
OpenAlexW3005812437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.