Assessment of barriers to patient participation in clinical trials among oncology outpatients at a community teaching hospital in Toronto.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract #2103 Background: This study investigated barriers to patient participation in clinical trials (CTs). In particular, the effect of educational attainment on the understanding of, interest about, and past participation in CTs among cancer patients at a Toronto community teaching hospital was assessed. Material and Methods: A survey was administered to cancer outpatients, containing Yes/No answers, Likert scales and written response answers. Responses were analyzed quantitatively (SPSS) and qualitatively (constant comparison, descriptive thematic analysis). Results: 101 questionnaires were completed out of 112 administered (90% response rate). 76% of patients self-reported as knowledgeable about clinical trials. Patients' education level correlated to their perceived knowledge of clinical trials:37.5% of patients with a less than grade 9, 59.4% with a high school, and 90.2% with a university background identified themselves as knowing what CTs are. All patients scored poorly on details and held common misconceptions of CTs (e.g. knowing little about placebos and experimental drug testing). Overall, 27% of patients had been previously enrolled in CTs. Of the 34% of patients who had been previously approached, 79% had agreed to participate. This result is higher than figures reported in literature, and slightly higher than a recent Canadian study at an academic center. The majority were willing to participate or unsure of participating in CTs. A minority stated they will never participate in a trial. Patients identified altruism, curiosity, personal benefit, alleviation of financial burdens, last resort treatment, and a desire to contribute to medicine as participation motivators. They identified unknown side effects, and risk of illness or death as reasons to decline. These concerns were consistent with previous studies. Patients also identified concern about lack of hospital resources about CTs and a desire to have a doctor present when learning about CTs. Patients with less education identify a greater desire for a doctor's presence than those with more education. Discussion: This study revealed lack of staff recruitment, low patient awareness, and lack of availability of trial facilities as potential barriers to participation. Targeted information to patients with different education levels may be appropriate, given variable knowledge about CTs. Education and counseling regarding placebos and experimental drugs should be targeted towards all patients to reduce barriers to patient participation, diminish myths, and increase understanding and interest. In response, this institution will design a brochure for all patients explaining and describing clinical trials, providing a glossary of terms, and offering a list of key resources. Availability of such information at oncology centers will in turn improve awareness and trial recruitment. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 2103.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».