Does Increased Patient Awareness Improve Accrual Into Cancer-Related Clinical Trials?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Background: Oncology literature cites that only 2% to 4% of patients participate in research. Up to 85% of patients are unaware that clinical trials research is being conducted at their treatment facility or that they might be eligible to participate. Objectives: It was hypothesized that patients' satisfaction with information regarding clinical trials would improve after targeted educational interventions, and accruals to clinical trials would increase in the year following those interventions. Methods: All new patients referred to the cancer center over a 4-month period were mailed a baseline survey to assess their knowledge of clinical research. Subsequently, educational interventions were provided, including an orientation session highlighting clinical trials, a pamphlet, and a reference to a clinical trials Web site. A postintervention survey was sent to the responders of the initial survey 3 months after the initial mailing. Results: Patient satisfaction with information significantly increased after the interventions. There was no increase in subsequent enrollment in clinical trials. Patients who indicated an inclination to participate in clinical trials tended to have greater satisfaction with the information they received. Conclusions: A set of educational interventions designed for cancer patients significantly improved their satisfaction with information on clinical research, but did not improve clinical trial enrollment of these participants as of 1 year after the study. Implications for Practice: The development of educational interventions may be justified, but such interventions may require prolonged implementation to establish benefit. Information relating to research may be most effectively delivered by patients' primary cancer care providers. Background: Oncology literature cites that only 2% to 4% of patients participate in research. Up to 85% of patients are unaware that clinical trials research is being conducted at their treatment facility or that they might be eligible to participate. Objectives: It was hypothesized that patients' satisfaction with information regarding clinical trials would improve after targeted educational interventions, and accruals to clinical trials would increase in the year following those interventions. Methods: All new patients referred to the cancer center over a 4-month period were mailed a baseline survey to assess their knowledge of clinical research. Subsequently, educational interventions were provided, including an orientation session highlighting clinical trials, a pamphlet, and a reference to a clinical trials Web site. A postintervention survey was sent to the responders of the initial survey 3 months after the initial mailing. Results: Patient satisfaction with information significantly increased after the interventions. There was no increase in subsequent enrollment in clinical trials. Patients who indicated an inclination to participate in clinical trials tended to have greater satisfaction with the information they received. Conclusions: A set of educational interventions designed for cancer patients significantly improved their satisfaction with information on clinical research, but did not improve clinical trial enrollment of these participants as of 1 year after the study. Implications for Practice: The development of educational interventions may be justified, but such interventions may require prolonged implementation to establish benefit. Information relating to research may be most effectively delivered by patients' primary cancer care providers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".