Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35717403›Full record

ArticleTrials2022

Patient and health practitioner views and experiences of a cancer trial before and during COVID-19: qualitative study.

Frances C Sherratt, Peter Fisher, Amy Mathieson, Mary G Cherry, Andrew R Pettitt, Bridget Young

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

6 authors.

Frances C SherrattDepartment of Public Health, Policy & System, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. sherratt@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4147-9305
Peter FisherDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Amy MathiesonNIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) Greater Manchester, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Mary G CherryDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Andrew R PettittDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Bridget YoungDepartment of Public Health, Policy & System, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK C18029\A21585
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding patient and health practitioner perspectives on clinical trials can inform opportunities to enhance trial conduct and design, and therefore patient experience. Patients with haematological cancers have faced additional risk and uncertainty during the pandemic but it is unclear how they and practitioners have experienced cancer trials during this period. In the context of a haemato-oncology trial (PETReA), we compared patient and practitioner views and experiences of PETReA before and during COVID-19.

methodsQualitative study embedded within PETReA. Semi-structured interviews (N=41) with patients and practitioners from 16 NHS sites before (n=17) and during the first wave of COVID-19 (n=24). Analysis drew on the framework approach.

resultsPractitioners acknowledged the need for the trial to continue during the pandemic but their treatment preferences altered, becoming more pronounced for patients who had a favourable response to induction treatment, while staying unchanged for patients with a less favourable response. Practitioners commented that COVID-19 meant the evidence base for the trial arms was lacking or mixed, but that it likely increased the risks of maintenance treatment for patients with a favourable response to induction treatment. While only one participant interviewed withdrew from PETReA during the pandemic, others said they would consider withdrawing if information that they were at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 became available. During COVID-19, patients described less frequent contact with the trial team, which left some feeling less clear about their trial pathway. However, several described having in-depth, collaborative discussions with practitioners about the risks and benefits of randomisation in the context of COVID-19. Patients valued these discussions and were reassured by the emphasis practitioners placed on patients being free to withdraw if circumstances changed, and this helped patients feel comfortable about continuing in PETReA.

conclusionsThe findings point to ways trial communication can support patients to feel comfortable about continuing in a trial during uncertain times, including adopting a more in-depth, collaborative exploration of the risks and benefits of trial arms with patients and emphasising voluntariness. The results are relevant to trialists recruiting patients who are clinically extremely vulnerable or are at increased risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes despite being vaccinated.

Indexed as

COVID-19NeoplasmsClinical Trials as TopicCommunicationHumansPandemicsQualitative ResearchClinical trialsCommunicationCOVID-19EquipoiseHaematologyLife change eventsLymphomaPandemicRandomised controlled trialsUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID35717403
PMCPMC9206129

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.