ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2020
Deciding to Enrol in a Cancer Trial: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Facilitators and barriers of lung cancer screening participation: umbrella and systematic review of the global evidence.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Understanding recruitment challenges in Swiss oncology trials: Patient voices from focus groups.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- Listening to Australians with ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey investigating clinical trials awareness, information access and participation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- "If I am here, it is because the system failed": a critical qualitative study of global commercial clinical trials for advanced cancer in Chile.Globalization and health · 2025Article
- Accepting to Participate in an Early-Phase Clinical Trial in Oncology: A Qualitative Study on the Patients' Experiences, Understanding, and Inner Motivations.Psycho-oncology · 2025Article
- How to Support Participants in Urogenital and Prostate Clinical Trials: A Qualitative Perspective.Psycho-oncology · 2025Article
- Perceptions of chemoprevention among individuals at high risk of oral cancer: qualitative study within the UK-based SAVER trial.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Patient, Relative and Staff Experiences of Clinical Trial Participation in Neurooncology: "Maybe You Can Also Show the Positive, No Matter How It Ends".Cancer management and research · 2024Article
- Article
- "There's not enough studies": Views of black breast and ovarian cancer patients on research participation.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Intentional and actional components of engaged participation in public health research studies: qualitative synthesis of a recruitment and retention process into the theory-informed INTACT-RS framework.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Knowledge and attitudes towards clinical trials among women with ovarian cancer: results of the ACTO study.Journal of ovarian research · 2022Observational
- Reasons for not reaching or using web-based self-management applications, and the use and evaluation of Oncokompas among cancer survivors, in the context of a randomised controlled trial.Internet interventions · 2021Article
- Barriers and facilitators to the participation of subjects in clinical trials: An overview of reviews.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
- "Something Good Has to Come Out of the Horror": A Qualitative Examination of Cancer Survivors' Attitudes Towards Participation in Research During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials are essential for the advancement of cancer treatments; however, participation by patients is suboptimal. Currently, there is a lack of synthesized qualitative review evidence on the patient experience of trial entry from which to further develop decision support. The aim of this review is to synthesise literature reporting experiences of participants when deciding to enrol in a cancer clinical trial in order to inform practice.
methodsA systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies were conducted to describe the experiences of adult cancer patients who decided to enrol in a clinical trial of an anti-cancer treatment.
resultsForty studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Three themes were identified representing the overarching domains of experience when deciding to enrol in a cancer trial: 1) need for trial information; (2) trepidation towards participation; and (3) justifying the decision. The process of deciding to enrol in a clinical trial is one marked by uncertainty, emotional distress and driven by the search for a cure.
conclusionFindings from this review show that decision support modelled by shared decision-making and the quality of a shared decision needs to be accompanied by tailored or personalised psychosocial and supportive care. Although the decision process bears similarities to theoretical processes outlined in decision-making frameworks, there are a lack of supportive interventions for cancer patients that are adapted to the clinical trial context. Theory-based interventions are urgently required to support the specific needs of patients deciding whether to participate in cancer trials.
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.