Literature DB >> 17656200

Urologists' attitudes regarding cancer clinical research.

Gregory P Swanson1, William R Carpenter, Ian M Thompson, E David Crawford.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Although breast cancer studies consistently accrue patients very rapidly, prostate cancer studies generally do so much more slowly and take much longer to complete, resulting in a much slower pace of validated clinical innovation. A survey of practicing urologists was undertaken to ascertain their attitudes about prostate cancer research, learn how to increase interest, and lower barriers to their participation.
METHODS: A 57-question survey exploring attitudes toward research was mailed to a 50% random sample of American Urological Association members, followed by two reminder cards. Most questions used a 7-point Likert scale. Response scores ranged from "disagree strongly" to "agree strongly."
RESULTS: A total of 642 surveys were returned. Of the respondents, 83% had enrolled patients in trials--70% since residency. Almost universal agreement was found that clinical trials build scientific knowledge (99%) and are beneficial to future patients (99%). Respondents agreed that trials are beneficial to their patients (81%), keep physicians better informed regarding current practices (78%), and benefit them or their practice (66%). Also, 76% expressed interest in participating in research. Statistically significant differences were found between those who currently offered clinical trials and those who did not.
CONCLUSIONS: The challenge in prostate cancer research is to transform the global perception of "value of research findings" into one of "value in participation." Response differences between those who did or did not currently participate in clinical research suggest strategies to build interest in clinical research, lower barriers to and the burden of participation, and increase participation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17656200     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  5 in total

1.  Science in the Heartland: Exploring determinants of offering cancer clinical trials in rural-serving community urology practices.

Authors:  Shellie D Ellis; Mugur Geana; Christine B Mackay; Deborah J Moon; Jessie Gills; Andrew Zganjar; Gayle Brekke; J Brantley Thrasher; Tomas L Griebling
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 3.498

2.  Participation in Cancer Pharmacogenomic Studies: A Study of 8456 Patients Registered to Clinical Trials in the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance).

Authors:  Lynn G Dressler; Allison M Deal; Kouros Owzar; Dorothy Watson; Katherine Donahue; Paula N Friedman; Mark J Ratain; Howard L McLeod
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Incremental costs of prostate cancer trials: Are clinical trials really a burden on a public payer system?

Authors:  Britney Jones; Rachel Syme; Misha Eliasziw; Bernhard J Eigl
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 4.  Development, acceptability, appropriateness and appeal of a cancer clinical trials implementation intervention for rural- and minority-serving urology practices.

Authors:  Shellie Ellis; Mugur Geana; Tomas Griebling; Charles McWilliams; Jessie Gills; Kelly Stratton; Christine Mackay; Ariel Shifter; Andrew Zganjar; Brantley Thrasher
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-10-07       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Access to urologists for participation in research: An analysis of NCI's Community Oncology Research Program landscape survey.

Authors:  Shellie D Ellis; Riha Vaidya; Joseph M Unger; Kelly Stratton; Jessie Gills; Peter Van Veldhuizen; Eileen Mederos; Emily V Dressler; Matthew F Hudson; Charles Kamen; Heather B Neuman; Anne E Kazak; Ruth C Carlos; Kathryn E Weaver
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2022-08-14
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.