ArticlePloS one2023
The emotional side of taking part in a cancer clinical trial.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and initial validation of a scale assessing sources of decision hesitation in patients with lung cancer invited to participate in drug clinical trials.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Emotion Classification in Japanese Cancer Survivor Interview Narratives Using Sentiment Polarity and Plutchik Emotion Frameworks: Model Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Beyond RCTs-Better Research Designs and Methods for Psychosocial Efficacy Studies in Mental Health.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2026Review
- Occurrence and management of premature clinical trial termination: a survey of UK healthcare professionals.Trials · 2026Article
- Patient Voice and Treatment Nonadherence in Cancer Care: A Scoping Review of Sentiment Analysis.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Review
- 'I want to be generous, but I only have limited energy': a qualitative study of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients' preferences for clinical trials participation.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Understanding of Clinical Trials Among Patients With Cancer and Their Relatives.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The dual role of empathy in clinical trial decisions.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Exploring emotional dynamics: Word count effects in Facebook posts by sports shoe brands.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Article
- Cancer Pain Experience Through the Lens of Patients and Caregivers: Mixed Methods Social Media Study.JMIR cancer · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTaking part in a cancer clinical trial often represents a source of psychological distress and emotional activation among patients and their caregivers. Nowadays, social media platforms provide a space for these groups to freely express and share their emotional experiences.
aimsWe aimed to reveal the most prevalent basic and complex emotions and sentiments in the posts of the patients and caregivers contemplating clinical trials on Reddit. Additionally, we aimed to categorize the types of users and posts.
methodsWith the use of keywords referring to clinical trials, we searched for public posts on the subreddit 'cancer'. R studio v. 4.1.2 (2021-11-01) and NRC Emotion Lexicon was used for analysis. Following the theoretical framework of Plutchik's wheel of emotions, the analysis included: 8 basic emotions (anger, fear, anticipation, trust, surprise, sadness, joy, and disgust) and 4 types of complex emotions (primary, secondary, tertiary, and opposite dyads). We utilized the package 'PyPlutchik' to visualize the emotion wheels in Python 3.10.5.
resultsA total of 241 posts were included in the final database. User types (129 patients, 112 caregivers) and post types (142 expressed shared experience, 77 expressed advice, and 85 conveyed both) were identified. Both positive (N = 2557, M = .68) and negative (N = 2154, M = .57) sentiments were high. The most prevalent basic emotions were: fear (N = 1702, M = .45), sadness (N = 1494, M = .40), trust (N = 1470, M = .44), and anticipation (N = 1376, M = .37). The prevalence of complex/dyadic emotions and their interpretation is further discussed.
conclusionIn this contribution, we identified and discussed prevalent emotions such as fear, sadness, optimism, hope, despair, and outrage that mirror the psychological state of users and affect the medical choices they make. The insights gained in our study contribute to the understanding of the barriers and reinforcers to participation in trials and can improve the ability of healthcare professionals to assist patients when confronted with this choice.
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.