Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36289456›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2022

Interventions supporting cancer patients in making decisions regarding participation in clinical trials - a systematic review.

Line Hillersdal, Zandra Engelbak Nielsen, Ane Taudorf Nørmark, Ann Knoop, Karin Piil

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Weighing Open Science Against Research Participation Burden in Informed Consent: A Randomized Pilot Study.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Line HillersdalCentre for Medical Science and Technology Studies, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353, Copenhagen K, Denmark. lihi@kp.dk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8137-843X
Zandra Engelbak NielsenDepartment of Oncology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7516-0143
Ane Taudorf NørmarkDepartment of Oncology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ann KnoopDepartment of Oncology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Karin PiilDepartment of Oncology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7972-4674

Funding

Danish Cancer Society Grant no. R195-A11981
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesExisting research on the perspectives of patients with cancer and health care professionals indicates that patient decision making on cancer clinical trial participation is a complex process and may be poorly understood, possibly compromising their decision to participate. This systematic review investigates interventions that support patients in their decision-making processes regarding whether to participate or not and assesses the qualities of the interventions, measures used and related outcomes.

methodsSix databases were systematically searched and only studies evaluating interventions that support the decision making of adult patients offered to enter a cancer clinical trial were included. Ten articles met the criteria and were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach.

resultsThe research focus of the included studies reflected the multifactorial nature of what constitutes support for patient decision making in terms of entering a cancer clinical trial. However, most interventions were based on the hypothesis that more information leads to support in decision making, and did not take other factors, such as the relationship to the clinical staff or relatives, the patients' strong hope for therapeutic benefit or other existential needs into account. The interventions were primarily based on a specific tool, executed once, which seems to imply that decisions need only to be supported once and not at several time points throughout the decision process, and did not assess the importance of a patient's family- or social relations. Moreover, few interventions focused on the patients' counselling experience or assessed patient preferences in relation to decision making.

conclusionsThe findings demonstrate a lack of research on interventions to support patients' decision making that takes other factors, apart from improving knowledge of trials, into account. Limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of decision support interventions to improve the experience of support in adult patients with cancer. Interventions that take patient preferences in relation to decision making and the social context of decision processes into account need to be developed and assessed.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAdultDecision MakingHealth PersonnelHumansPatient ParticipationPatient PreferenceCancerDecision supportNarrative synthesisOncologySystematic reviewTrial participation

Identifiers

PMID36289456
PMCPMC9609242

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.