ArticleJAMA network open2025
Understanding of Clinical Trials Among Patients With Cancer and Their Relatives.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physician- and Practice-Level Variation in Clinical Trial Participation Among Patients With Advanced Cancer.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Patient and Caregiver Reported Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation: A Scoping Review.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Understanding recruitment challenges in Swiss oncology trials: Patient voices from focus groups.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- Near-Real-Time Clinical Trial Accrual Dashboard in a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center: Mixed Methods Implementation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Evaluating Patient Preferences for Clinical Trial Endpoints in Early-Stage Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Barriers Toward Clinical Trial Participation in Türkiye: A Cross-Sectional Survey and Implications for Oncology Research Capacity.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Public acceptance of genome editing in Saudi Arabia is driven by therapeutic benefit despite limited awareness.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring Acceptance of Pain Management Strategies in Oncology: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of pain research · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Clinical trials are vital for advancing cancer treatments and improving patient outcomes. Understanding the factors that influence participants' decision-making is critical for enhancing trial recruitment. Objective: To evaluate the attitudes of patients with cancer and their relatives toward clinical trial participation, identifying key barriers and motivators that affect their willingness to engage in such trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional survey study was conducted between April 2020 and April 2021. Face-to-face questionnaires were administered by physicians across 6 tertiary hospital medical oncology departments in Turkey. Adults with cancer and their relatives were recruited. Data were analyzed from April to December 2021. Exposure: Participants' knowledge, perceptions, and motivations regarding clinical trial participation were assessed through a structured questionnaire. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants' demographic information, their willingness to participate in clinical trials, their perceptions about the clinical trial participation, and the facilitators and barriers to participation. Results: A total of 978 participants were surveyed, with a median (range) age of 52 (18-82) years; 485 (49.6%) were male and 479 (49.0%) female. Of these, 578 (59.1%) were patients with cancer and 382 (39.1%) family members. Prior clinical trial experience was reported by 174 participants (17.8%), and 428 (43.8%) expressed a willingness to participate in clinical trials. Participants well-informed about clinical trials showed higher willingness (50 of 87 [57.5%] very willing) compared with those with no knowledge (27 of 303 [8.9%] very willing) (χ2 = 275.095; P < .001). Greater willingness was observed in participants from less developed cities compared with the most developed cities (88 of 321 [27.4%] vs 94 of 615 [15.3%]; χ2 = 21.093; P < .001), in individuals with a high school degree or greater compared with those with less than a high school degree (105 of 489 [21.5%] vs 76 of 452 [16.8%]; χ2 = 33.311; P < .001), in those with monthly incomes above compared with below the poverty line (81 of 409 [19.8%] vs 100 of 512 [19.5%]; χ2 = 16.145; P = .003), in those without prior cancer treatment compared with those with prior cancer treatment (125 of 591 [21.2%] vs 40 of 289 [13.8%]; χ2 = 13.801; P = .008), and in participants with prior trial experience compared with those without (74 of 166 [44.6%] vs 111 of 786 [14.1%]; χ2 = 87.771; P < .001). Participants were motivated by potential personal health benefits (604 [61.8%]) and access to new treatments (522 [53.4%]). The primary concerns included potential adverse effects (555 [56.7%]), feeling like a "test subject" (284 [29.0%]), and the risk of receiving a placebo (197 [20.1%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of patients with cancer and their relatives, significant gaps in knowledge and persistent concerns about clinical trial safety were highlighted, impacting participation. Addressing these concerns through targeted education and transparent communication is essential for improving participation rates and ensuring more inclusive cancer research.
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.