Literature DB >> 2008619

Patients' willingness to enter clinical trials: measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation.

H A Llewellyn-Thomas1, M J McGreal, E C Thiel, S Fine, C Erlichman.   

Abstract

Patients who agree and those who refuse clinical trial entry may differ in attitudes towards decision control and the benefits associated with the trial arms. These differences, if they exist, have implications for the process of obtaining informed consent and for the generalization of the results of a clinical trial. This paper describes the development and initial application of methods designed to detect such differences. Developmental work involved creating an inventory of instruments designed to determine patients' attitudes towards participating in treatment decision making, permitting random selection of treatment, and undertaking the risks and benefits associated with the various treatments in a trial. Initial application involved modifying these instruments in terms of an actual chemotherapeutic trial for colonic adenocarcinoma, seeking responses to these measures from 60 non-eligible colorectal cancer patients, then determining whether those who would agree to trial entry differed systematically on these measures from those who indicated that they would refuse such a trial. Twenty-five of the respondents reported that, if faced with the actual decision, they would agree to trial entry: 35 would refuse. Refusers demanded more participation in decision making (Chi-square; P = 0.01) and a greater increment in treatment benefit (t-test; P = 0.0001). Twenty-two of the 35 refusers reported aversion to randomization as their primary reason for trial refusal. Since their particular content can be modified, these measures may be applicable to all clinical trials. They could be used to study the reasons patients accept or refuse trial entry and to determine if agreer-refuser attitude differences undermine the generalizability of a trials results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2008619     DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90124-u

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  68 in total

1.  Conducting randomized trials in general practice: methodological and practical issues.

Authors:  E Ward; M King; M Lloyd; P Bower; K Friedli
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  A role for the sick role. Patient preferences regarding information and participation in clinical decision-making.

Authors:  A M Stiggelbout; G M Kiebert
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1997-08-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Determination of the clinical importance of study results.

Authors:  Malcolm Man-Son-Hing; Andreas Laupacis; Keith O'Rourke; Frank J Molnar; Jeffery Mahon; Karen B Y Chan; George Wells
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  The promise of empirical research in the study of informed consent theory and practice.

Authors:  Laura A Siminoff; Marie Caputo; Christopher Burant
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2004-03

5.  Studying patients' preferences in health care decision making. Health Services Research Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-09-15       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Challenges to evidence-based medicine: a comparison of patients and treatments in randomized controlled trials with patients and treatments in a practice research network.

Authors:  Deborah A Zarin; Julia L Young; Joyce C West
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.328

Review 7.  Emerging empirical evidence on the ethics of schizophrenia research.

Authors:  Laura B Dunn; Philip J Candilis; Laura Weiss Roberts
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 9.306

8.  Medication nonadherence and subsequent risk of hospitalisation and mortality among older adults.

Authors:  Shelly A Vik; David B Hogan; Scott B Patten; Jeffrey A Johnson; Lori Romonko-Slack; Colleen J Maxwell
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.923

9.  Feasibility, acceptability and findings from a pilot randomized controlled intervention study on the impact of a book designed to inform patients about cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Erin K Tucker; Timothy A Newby; Tomasz M Beer
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.037

10.  Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  K Featherstone; J L Donovan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.