MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluation of adolescents and young adults (AYA) attitudes towards participation in cancer clinical trials.

2017· article· en· W2891147617 on OpenAlexaff
Abha A. Gupta, Jennifer Bell, Kate Wang, Victoria Forcina, Seline Tam, Yu‐Chung Lin, Nathan Taback, Laura E. Mitchell, Jeremy Lewin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionYoung adultDescriptive statisticsDemographicsCohortClinical trialCancerFamily medicineGerontologyDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10047 Background: Participation in clinical trials (CT) for AYA ( < 39 years) remain the lowest of any patient group with cancer. Little is known about the personal barriers to AYA accrual. The aim of this study was to explore AYA attitudes that influence CT participation. Methods: A mixed methods approach included 1) qualitative: interpretive descriptive methodology guided individual semi-structured interviews with 21 AYA for factors influencing CT enrollment and 2) quantitative: AYA and non-AYA (≥40) matched for histology completed Cancer Treatment subscale of Attitudes toward Cancer Trials Scales (ACTS-CT) (Schuber, 2008) and 9 supplementary questions formed from interview analysis. Differences between AYA and non-AYA cohorts were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and ordered logistic regression models were constructed for prediction of the effect of baseline demographics. Results: The major themes influencing CT participation were: (1) family/peer group opinion (2) CT impact on daily/future life (e.g. school; starting a family) and (3) illness severity/psychological readiness for CT information. Surveys were distributed to 61 AYA (median age: 29 years (17-39)); 74 non-AYA (55 (40-88)). Compared with non-AYA, AYA perceived CT to be unsafe/more difficult (Personal Barrier/Safety domain; p = 0.01). AYA were also more concerned with CT interference in their long term goals (p = 0.04). Logistic regression identified participants who had previously been offered a CT (p = 0.01) or who spoke English as their first language (80% of cohort)(p = 0.01) reported less barriers to CT. There were no differences based on age in other domains (Personal Benefits; Personal/Social Value; Trust in CT). In all participants, differences were seen in the Personal Benefits domain if respondents had children (p = 0.05) or were currently working (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Age-related differences in attitudes towards CT suggest that tailored approaches to CT accrual of different patient groups may be warranted. Patient-centered delivery of information regarding CT, particularly for those in whom English is a second language and who are trial-naïve, may improve accrual and warrants further prospective, randomized study.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.575
GPT teacher head0.665
Teacher spread0.089 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→