Literature DB >> 14982495

Patient and clinician collaboration in the design of a national randomized breast cancer trial.

Jo Marsden1, Jane Bradburn.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To show breast cancer patient involvement in the design of a national randomized trial of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in symptomatic patients will increase accrual. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Three stakeholder groups [(1) researchers from the Lynda Jackson Macmillan Centre, (2) the Consumers' Advisory Group for Clinical Trials (CAG-CT), (3) clinicians responsible for a pilot randomized HRT study in breast cancer patients] developed this collaborative study.
METHODS: (1) Nine focus group discussions were conducted to identify issues relevant to breast cancer patients about HRT and a national trial: six involved women from breast cancer support groups nationwide and three patients who had previously participated in the pilot randomized HRT study. (2) Recommendations from the focus groups (analysed by Grounded Theory) were debated by the research stakeholders and focus group representatives at a 1-day meeting and consensus reached (using a voting system) on mutual priorities for incorporation into the design of a national HRT trial. (3) Representatives from the CAG-CT and focus groups participated in subsequent national HRT steering committee meetings to ensure that these priorities were accounted for and the resulting trial design summary was circulated to the CAG-CT and all focus group representatives for comment.
RESULTS: Focus groups demonstrated that the complexity of factors relating to trial participation was not just restricted to the research topic in question. Patient-clinician interaction provided a platform for negotiating potential conflicts over trial design and outcomes. Patient feedback suggested that mutually agreed priorities were accounted for in the trial design.
INTERPRETATION: Clinical research planning should involve all research stakeholders at the outset. Quantifying the impact of patient involvement in terms of trial accrual may be too simple given the complexity of their motivations for participating in trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14982495      PMCID: PMC5060213          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00232.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  8 in total

Review 1.  Contribution of randomised controlled trials to understanding and management of early breast cancer.

Authors:  M Baum; J Houghton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-08-28

2.  Consumers and trials.

Authors:  D Fagge; P Corrie; J Regan
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-09-01       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Are randomized trials of hormone replacement therapy in symptomatic women with breast cancer feasible?

Authors:  J Marsden; M Whitehead; R A'Hern; M Baum; N Sacks
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 4.  Hormone replacement therapy after breast cancer: a systematic review and quantitative assessment of risk.

Authors:  N F Col; L K Hirota; R K Orr; J K Erban; J B Wong; J Lau
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Can a clinical trial be the treatment of choice for patients with cancer?

Authors:  R D Gelber; A Goldhirsch
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1988-08-17       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: first results of the ATAC randomised trial.

Authors:  M Baum; A U Budzar; J Cuzick; J Forbes; J H Houghton; J G M Klijn; T Sahmoud
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-06-22       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  The prevalence of menopausal symptoms in patients treated for breast cancer.

Authors:  P A Canney; M Q Hatton
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.126

8.  Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres.

Authors:  V Jenkins; L Fallowfield; J Saul
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2001-01-05       Impact factor: 7.640

  8 in total
  21 in total

1.  Reporting dates is necessary to establish historical perspective--and validity of references.

Authors:  Hazel Thornton
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  HRT and breast cancer.

Authors:  Heather Goodare
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  'But is it a question worth asking?' A reflective case study describing how public involvement can lead to researchers' ideas being abandoned.

Authors:  Jonathan D Boote; Mary Dalgleish; Janet Freeman; Zena Jones; Marianne Miles; Helen Rodgers
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Supporting public involvement in research design and grant development: a case study of a public involvement award scheme managed by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Design Service (RDS).

Authors:  Jonathan D Boote; Maureen Twiddy; Wendy Baird; Yvonne Birks; Clare Clarke; Daniel Beever
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Barriers and facilitators of clinical trial enrollment in a network of community-based pediatric oncology clinics.

Authors:  Carolyn Russo; Linda Stout; Toni House; Victor M Santana
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2019-09-25       Impact factor: 3.167

6.  Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience.

Authors:  Meryl Brod; Laura E Tesler; Torsten L Christensen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-09-27       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 7.  Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jo Brett; Sophie Staniszewska; Carole Mockford; Sandra Herron-Marx; John Hughes; Colin Tysall; Rashida Suleman
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Active Patient Engagement: Long Overdue in Rehabilitation Research.

Authors:  Samantha Louise Harrison; Dina Brooks
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.037

9.  Service user involvement in cancer care: the impact on service users.

Authors:  Phil Cotterell; Gwen Harlow; Carolyn Morris; Peter Beresford; Bec Hanley; Anita Sargeant; John Sitzia; Kristina Staley
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 10.  Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework.

Authors:  Nathan D Shippee; Juan Pablo Domecq Garces; Gabriela J Prutsky Lopez; Zhen Wang; Tarig A Elraiyah; Mohammed Nabhan; Juan P Brito; Kasey Boehmer; Rim Hasan; Belal Firwana; Patricia J Erwin; Victor M Montori; M Hassan Murad
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-06-03       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.