ArticleJMIR cancer2022
Patient and Provider Perspectives on Enrollment in Precision Oncology Research: Qualitative Ethical Analysis.
Article in JMIR cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Determinants of willingness to share personal genomic data: a systematic review focused on health literacy.BMC medical ethics · 2026Pooled it
- Community perspectives on the return of research results and ownership of data and specimens for brain tumor genomic research.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2026Article
- Patient and Provider Experiences With Precision Oncology: Qualitative Descriptive Study at the Department of Veterans Affairs.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Potential Barriers to Participating in Cancer Moonshot Biobank for Low-Income Patients with Cancer of Rural Maine.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2025Article
- The ethical aspects of human organ-on-chip models: A mapping review.Stem cell reports · 2025Review
- Digital Health Technologies in Pediatric Infectious Disease and the Perspective of Patients and Healthcare Professionals: A Review.Health science reports · 2025Article
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
backgroundThe genomic frontier continues to revolutionize the practice of oncology. Advances in cancer biology from tumorigenesis to treatment resistance are driven by the molecular underpinnings of malignancy. The framing of precision oncology as both a clinical and research tool is constantly evolving and directly influences conversations between oncologists and their patients. Prior research has shown that patient-participants often have unmet or unrealistic expectations regarding the clinical utility of oncology research and genomic sequencing. This indicates the need for more in-depth investigation of how and why patients choose to participate in such research.
objectiveThis study presents a qualitative ethical analysis to better understand patient and provider perspectives on enrollment in precision oncology research.
methodsPaired semistructured interviews were conducted with patient-participants enrolled in a prospective head and neck precision oncology research platform, along with their oncology providers, at a National Cancer Institute-designated academic cancer center.
resultsThere were three major themes that emerged from the analysis. (1) There are distinct and unique challenges with informed consent to precision medicine, chiefly involving the ability of both patient-participants and providers to effectively understand the science underlying the research. (2) The unique benefits of precision medicine enrollment are of paramount importance to patients considering enrollment. (3) Patient-participants have little concern for the risks of research enrollment, particularly in the context of a low-burden protocol.
conclusionsPatient-participants and their providers offer complementary and nuanced perspectives on their motivation to engage in precision oncology research. This reflects both the inherent promise and enthusiasm within the field, as well as the limitations and challenges of ensuring that both patient-participants and clinicians understand the complexities of the science involved.
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.