ArticleCancer medicine2020
Gatekeeping in cancer clinical trials in Canada: The ethics of recruiting the "ideal" patient.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Silent Gap: Underrepresentation of Latin American Patients in Pivotal Genitourinary and Skin Cancer Trials.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trial Participation Among Families From Historically Marginalized Groups.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Advancing Global Cancer Symptom Science: Insights and Strategies From the Inaugural Cancer Symptom Science Expert Meeting.Oncology nursing forum · 2025Article
- Advancing Global Cancer Symptom Science: Insights and Strategies from the Inaugural Cancer Symptom Science Expert Meeting.Seminars in oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Taxonomy of chronic illness research recruitment: a restricted scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Screening log: Challenges in community patient recruitment for gynecologic oncology clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Physician barriers and dilemmas in the execution of clinical trials impacting decision-making in the DAHANCA 35 proton therapy trial for head and neck cancer.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Decision-making and autonomy among participants in early-phase cancer immunotherapy trials: a qualitative study.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Review
- Access to cancer clinical trials for racialised older adults: an equity-focused rapid scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Pediatric subspecialty healthcare providers' views of recruitment during a randomized controlled trial of a mobile health intervention.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2023Article
- Gatekeeping in cancer clinical trials in Canada: The ethics of recruiting the "ideal" patient.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.