ArticleAJOB empirical bioethics
Informed Consent among Clinical Trial Participants with Different Cancer Diagnoses.
Article in AJOB empirical bioethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Planned time burden for patients participating in phase 2 cancer trials.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation: Perspectives of Patients in the ICON-3 Practice-Based Research Network, Nigeria.JCO global oncology · 2025Article
- Towards better enrollment decision-making for perinatal clinical research: Reconsidering recruitment and consent processes to support family values and preferences.Seminars in perinatology · 2025Review
- Participants' perceptions support the coexistence of benefits and burdens of cancer clinical trial participation.Journal of psychosocial oncology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceInformed consent is essential to ethical, rigorous research and is important to recruitment and retention in cancer trials.
objectiveTo examine cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants' perceptions of informed consent processes and variations in perceptions by cancer type. DESIGN AND SETTING AND
participantsCross-sectional survey from mixed-methods study at National Cancer Institute-designated Northeast comprehensive cancer center. Open-ended and forced-choice items addressed: (1) enrollment and informed consent experiences and (2) decision-making processes, including risk-benefit assessment. Eligibility: CCT participant with gastro-intestinal or genitourinary, hematologic-lymphatic malignancies, lung cancer, and breast or gynecological cancer (
main outcome measuresPercentages satisfied with consent process and information provided; and assessing participation's perceptions of risks/benefits. Multivariable logistic or ordinal regression examined differences by cancer type.
resultsMost patient-participants felt well informed by the consent process (more than 90% overall and by cancer type) and. most (87.4%) reported that the consent form provided all the information they wanted, although nearly half (44.8%) reported that they read the form somewhat carefully or less. More than half (57.9%) said that talking to research staff (i.e., the consent process) had a greater impact on participation decisions than reading the consent form (2.1%). A third (31.1%) were very sure of joining in research studies before the informed consent process (almost half of lung cancer patients did-47.1%). Most patients personally assessed the risks and benefits before consenting. However, trust in physicians played an important role in the decision to enroll in CCT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Cancer patients rely less on written features of the informed consent process than on information obtained from the research staff and their own physicians. Research should focus on information and communication strategies that support informed consent from referring physicians, researchers, and others to improve patient risk-benefit assessment and decision-making.
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.