Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32201595›Full record

ArticleLupus science & medicine2020

Lupus patient decisions about clinical trial participation: a qualitative evaluation of perceptions, facilitators and barriers.

Cristina Arriens, Teresa Aberle, Fredonna Carthen, Stan Kamp, Aikaterini Thanou, Eliza Chakravarty, Judith A James, Joan T Merrill, Motolani E Ogunsanya

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lupus science & medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Lupus clinical trials and the promise of future therapies.Rheumatology and immunology research · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Patient-centred clinical trial design.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cristina ArriensArthritis and Clinical Immunology, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9546-1664
Teresa AberleArthritis and Clinical Immunology, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Fredonna CarthenArthritis and Clinical Immunology, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Stan KampArthritis and Clinical Immunology, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Aikaterini ThanouArthritis and Clinical Immunology, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1161-7618
Eliza ChakravartyArthritis and Clinical Immunology, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Judith A JamesArthritis and Clinical Immunology, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Joan T MerrillArthritis and Clinical Immunology, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Motolani E OgunsanyaCollege of Pharmacy, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4005-0446
Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation · USUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center · US

Funding

Tracking and Evaluation CoreU54GM104938 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI PAUL G SPICER · 2013 to 2026
$68.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104938
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Although SLE disproportionately affects minority racial groups, they are significantly under-represented in clinical trials in the USA. This may lead to misleading conclusions in race-based subgroup analyses. We conducted focus groups to evaluate the perceptions of diverse patients with lupus about clinical trial participation. Methods: A qualitative research design employed three 90 min focus groups led by a trained moderator and guided by the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Open-ended questions about trial participation included advantages and disadvantages (behavioural beliefs), approving and disapproving significant others (normative beliefs), and participation enhancers and barriers (control beliefs). Discussions were recorded, transcribed and analysed to identify emerging themes. Results: Patients with SLE (n=23) aged 21-72, with increased proportion of minority groups (65%), participated. Reported advantages of trial participation included altruism and personal benefit. Disadvantages included uncertainties, disappointment, information burden, and life-health balance. Although some patients had discussed research participation with approving or disapproving family or friends, self-approval superseded external approval. Barriers included logistics and time, and facilitators included flexibility in scheduling, advance notice of studies, streamlined forms, and hope for SLE improvement. Conclusions: Knowledge about potential benefits of clinical trial participation was high. Minority patients demonstrated confidence in making their own informed decisions, but major barriers for all participants included burdensome forms, travel, childcare, and work. These suggest a major impact on minority and all recruitment from behavioural and control aspects, which should be considered in the logistics of trial design. This does not minimise the potential importance of improved access and education about clinical research.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAltruismClinical Trials as TopicCultureDecision MakingFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLupus Erythematosus, SystemicMaleMiddle AgedMinority GroupsOklahomaPatient Participationfocus grouppatient perspectivequalitative researchracial disparitiessystemic lupus erythematosus

Identifiers

PMID32201595
PMCPMC7073780
OpenAlexW3011719344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.