Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Improving cancer clinical trial enrollment and patient understanding using TrialTalk, a structured communication method: a pilot randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03656276 (The "ToPIC" Study = Tool to Improve Participation In Clinical Trials), which is not on this 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.
The "ToPIC" Study = Tool to Improve Participation In Clinical Trials
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStructured, easy-to-interpret approaches are needed to facilitate preference-sensitive decision-making about cancer treatments. The TrialTalk method incorporates a verbal component and a pen-and-paper diagram that outlines the diagnosis, prognostic implications, treatment options, potential outcomes, and anticipated impacts on daily life. This pilot study examined (1) oncologists' ability to learn and then implement the tool in their clinical practice and (2) the effect of the TrialTalk method on clinical trial consent and enrollment.
methodsTwenty-seven oncologists from a single academic institution were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 14) or the control group (n = 13). Intervention group oncologists completed a single, 2-hour TrialTalk training program including a didactic, simulated session with patient actors and feedback from the trainer. Additional feedback and question/answer sessions were available. Oncologists in the control group did not receive TrialTalk training. Clinical trial decisions were collected from patients seen by oncologists in both groups.
resultsIntervention oncologists demonstrated fidelity with the tool after training. Patients of oncologists in the intervention group were significantly more likely to consent to participate in clinical trials than patients of oncologists in the control group (92.9% vs. 82.4%, p = 0.04). Actual enrollment rates after signing consent were equal in both groups (78.2% in the intervention group vs. 73.3% in the control group).
conclusionPatients who met with TrialTalk-trained oncologists were more likely to sign consent to participate in a clinical trial. The decision-making conversation with the oncologist is a critical moment for patients considering clinical trial participation, and targeting these encounters has the potential to increase overall trial participation rates.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03656276.
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.