ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Oncologists' knowledge, practices and ethical opinions about therapeutic misconception: a French national survey.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. 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.
- Therapeutic Misconception as a Problem of Nonmaleficence by Way of False Hope.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTherapeutic misconception (TM) among research participants refers to the conflation of research goals (generating generalisable knowledge) with clinical care goals (making the best decisions for the participants). Considering the high volume of oncology research, oncologists frequently encounter TM.
aimTo evaluate the knowledge, practices, and ethical concerns of French oncologists regarding TM. MATERIALS AND
methodsA questionnaire was developed to assess oncologists' knowledge and practices concerning TM, then utilised in a national survey of French oncologists from 1 June to 14 July 2023. A descriptive statistical analysis of the responses (according to a Likert scale) was carried out.
resultsIn total, 288 oncologists from various specialties responded to the survey. Initial knowledge of TM was low (16%), but after the definition was provided, 84% reported having encountered TM. Respondents indicated that they paid attention to the information given during participant inclusion; however, approximately half (46%) actively investigated the presence of TM, and 22% admitted to having encouraged TM at least occasionally. Attention to TM significantly declined over the course of study protocols. Awareness of TM, along with ethics education or participation in a research ethics committee, were identified as significant factors influencing responses. The acceptability of TM was nuanced, particularly in protocols recommended to patients receiving last-line treatments. Although 64% of respondents acknowledged a link between TM and dual roles as both investigator and physician, 78% opposed transferring investigative responsibilities to a non-referent oncologist.
conclusionTM is a widespread but still mostly unknown phenomenon which could easily be tackled for better outcomes for patients. This study revealed considerable variability in knowledge, practices, and ethical considerations related to TM among French oncologists. Enhanced education and ethical support are needed to improve awareness and foster appropriate behaviours concerning TM. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.