Observational studySupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Are those all my options? Evaluating oncologists' communication strategies in treatment and clinical trial discussions by race and gender.
Observational study in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIncreasing patient enrollment and promoting equity in trial participation are essential to improving cancer care outcomes. Physicians play a crucial role in decision-making, making it important to understand communication strategies used by oncologists when discussing treatment options, including clinical trial participation.
methodsThis observational qualitative study was conducted from 2022 to 2023. We recruited US medical oncologists who treat colon cancer and have access to clinical trials. Oncologists participated in simulated telehealth encounters with standardized patients with colon cancer who identified as Black or white and were referred to discuss treatment options, including a potential clinical trial.
resultsOf 107 academic physicians contacted, 47 (44%) responded, and 21 (20%) participated. The median age was 41, 43% female, and 33% non-white. Average encounter length was 44:05 minutes. One to four treatment options were discussed. Clinical trials were discussed in nearly all conversations. Average duration of clinical trial-related talk was 08:30 minutes. Conversations with Black female patients were significantly shorter than with white female patients (mean difference: 7 minutes). Recommendations varied with 9/21 oncologists recommending a clinical trial, 9/21 deferring a decision, and 3/21 recommending standard of care. In the post-encounter survey, 86% of oncologists said they recommended a trial but only 43% actually did so.
conclusionOncologists' communication about treatment options may impact patients' decisions and trial participation. In our study, fewer than half of oncologists recommended a trial with variability in how options were presented and the length of discussion. There was also a misperception with more oncologists thinking they recommended a trial, but they did not in the encounter. A more structured approach to these complex discussions may help oncologists communicate treatment options to patients in a more equitable and effective way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40285937What 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.