Literature DB >> 7659635

Presenting clinical trial information: a comparison of methods.

H A Llewellyn-Thomas, E C Thiel, F W Sem, D E Woermke.   

Abstract

The study objective was to assess the relative effects of 2 approaches to teaching about a clinical trial, in terms of patients' satisfaction, information understanding, and whether or not they would enter such a trial. One hundred patients receiving radiation therapy for a variety of cancer diagnoses were randomized to receive information about a hypothetical trial, either by audio tape or interactive computer program. A day later, information understanding was assessed. One week later, method satisfaction and whether respondents would enter such a trial were assessed. There were no differences in understanding or satisfaction. Members of the computer program group tended to report a more positive attitude towards trial entry (chi 2 = 4.0; 1 df; P = 0.05). Overall, refusers tended to be women with higher understanding scores. The results suggest that teaching with interactive components might not adversely affect trial accrual. Further work involving an actual trial entry decision is merited; the sex of the respondent should be controlled in designing this future work.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7659635     DOI: 10.1016/0738-3991(94)00705-q

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  19 in total

1.  "Entering a Clinical Trial: Is it Right for You?": a randomized study of The Clinical Trials Video and its impact on the informed consent process.

Authors:  Brianna Hoffner; Susan Bauer-Wu; Suzanne Hitchcock-Bryan; Mark Powell; Andrew Wolanski; Steven Joffe
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-08-25       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  The use of multimedia in the informed consent process.

Authors:  H B Jimison; P P Sher; R Appleyard; Y LeVernois
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1998 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Improving participant understanding of informed consent in an HIV-prevention clinical trial: a comparison of methods.

Authors:  Amy L Corneli; James R Sorenson; Margaret E Bentley; Gail E Henderson; J Michael Bowling; Jacqueline Nkhoma; Agnes Moses; Cynthia Zulu; James Chilima; Yusuf Ahmed; Charles M Heilig; Denise J Jamieson; Charles van der Horst
Journal:  AIDS Behav       Date:  2012-02

4.  Multi-Media Educational Tool Increases Knowledge of Clinical Trials in Uganda.

Authors:  Barbara Castelnuovo; Kevin Newell; Yukari C Manabe; Gavin Robertson
Journal:  J Clin Res Bioeth       Date:  2014-01-02

5.  Subjects agree to participate in environmental health studies without fully comprehending the associated risk.

Authors:  Robin Lee; Samantha Lampert; Lynn Wilder; Anne L Sowell
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Improving informed consent: pilot of a decision aid for women invited to participate in a breast cancer prevention trial (IBIS-II DCIS).

Authors:  I Juraskova; P Butow; A Lopez; M Seccombe; A Coates; F Boyle; N McCarthy; L Reaby; J F Forbes
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 7.  Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review.

Authors:  Patrina H Y Caldwell; Sana Hamilton; Alvin Tan; Jonathan C Craig
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2010-11-09       Impact factor: 11.069

8.  Reformed consent: adapting to new media and research participant preferences.

Authors:  James Henry; Barton W Palmer; Lawrence Palinkas; Danielle Kukene Glorioso; Michael P Caligiuri; Dilip V Jeste
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2009 Mar-Apr

Review 9.  On what basis should the effectiveness of decision aids be judged?

Authors:  Andrew D M Kennedy
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  The relationships among knowledge, self-efficacy, preparedness, decisional conflict, and decisions to participate in a cancer clinical trial.

Authors:  S M Miller; S V Hudson; B L Egleston; S Manne; J S Buzaglo; K Devarajan; L Fleisher; J Millard; N Solarino; J Trinastic; N J Meropol
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 3.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.