ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Development and validation of a drug clinical trial participation feelings questionnaire for cancer patients.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study was designed to develop and validate a new drug clinical trial participation feelings questionnaire (DCTPFQ) for cancer patients. Methods: Data collection and analysis involved a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. There were two phases to this study. Phase Ⅰ involved developing a questionnaire to establish a list of items to be included in the pool: A theoretical framework was constructed based on the transitions theory and the Roper-Logan-Tierney theory. After incorporating a theoretical framework, interviewing participants, and reviewing the literature, 44 items were generated. After a Delphi consultation and a pilot test, 36 items proceeded to item analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and a four-factor structure with 21 items was formed. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), test-retest reliability, criteria-related validity, and internal consistency tests were conducted in phase II to examine the psychometric properties. Results: There were 21 items on the DCTPFQ, ranging from 1 (fully disagree) through 5 (fully agree). As a result of EFA and CFA, the four factors of DCTPFQ could be verified, including cognitive engagement, subjective experience, medical resources, and relatives and friends' support. Test-retest reliability of the DCTPFQ was 0.840, and Cronbach's alpha was 0.934. DCTPFQ is significantly correlated with the Fear of Progression Questionnaire-short form (r = 0.731, Conclusion: The DCTPFQ is a useful tool for measuring the drug clinical trial participation feelings among cancer patients.
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.