Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32314549›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2020

Gatekeeping in cancer clinical trials in Canada: The ethics of recruiting the "ideal" patient.

Jennifer A H Bell, Mary T Kelly, Karen Gelmon, Kim Chi, Anita Ho, Patricia Rodney, Lynda G Balneaves

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Jennifer A H BellUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3617-6852
Mary T KellyUniversity Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Karen GelmonUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Kim ChiUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Anita HoUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Patricia RodneyUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Lynda G BalneavesUniversity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerspectives of clinical trial (CT) personnel on accrual to oncology CTs are relatively absent from the literature. This study explores CT personnel's experience recruiting patients to oncology CTs.

methodsA qualitative study design was utilized. In-depth, individual interviews with 12 oncology CT personnel were conducted, including six CT nurses and six physician-investigators. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were subjected to thematic and ethical analysis to identify key concepts and themes.

resultsCT personnel reported considering two ethical commitments in CT recruitment: maintaining trial integrity and ensuring patient autonomy through obtaining informed consent. The process of gatekeeping emerged as a way to navigate these ethical commitments during CT accrual. Gatekeeping was influenced by: (a) perceptions of patients' personal suitability for a trial, and (b) healthcare resources and infrastructure. CT personnel's discernment of personal suitability was influenced by patients' cognitive and mental health status, language and cultural background, geographic location, family support, and disease status. Three structural factors impacted gatekeeping: complexity of CTs, consent process, and time limitations in the healthcare system. CT personnel experienced most factors as constraints to accrual and gaining patients' informed consent.

conclusionCT personnel discussed navigating ethical challenges in CT recruitment by offering enrollment to specific patient populations, exacerbating other ethical tensions. Systems-level strategies are needed to address barriers to ethical CT recruitment. Future research should investigate the role of policies and/or tools (eg, decision aids) to support patients and CT personnel's discussions about CT participation, promote more ethical recruitment, and potentially increase accrual.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingFemaleGatekeepingHumansInformed ConsentMaleNeoplasmsPatient ParticipationPatient SelectionQualitative ResearchResearch PersonnelSurveys and Questionnairesclinical trialsoncology trialsresearch ethicstrial accrualtrial participants

Identifiers

PMID32314549
PMCPMC7300392

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.