Literature DB >> 8974209

Participants' perceptions of a phase I colon cancer chemoprevention trial.

K S Hudmon1, C Stoltzfus, R M Chamberlain, R J Lorimor, G Steinbach, R J Winn.   

Abstract

To assess participants' perceptions of a phase I colon cancer chemoprevention trial using a calcium intervention, questionnaires were mailed to trial participants at the conclusion of the study. Responses to questionnaire items reported here include (1) perceived benefits and barriers of participation, (2) interest in participating in future trials, (3) willingness to pay trial expenses out of pocket, and (4) posttrial continuation of the calcium regimen. The study found that the most highly rated trial benefit was the perception of potential colon cancer prevention; the trial barrier reported to be the most troublesome was inappropriate or mistaken billing for study visits. Three fourths of the subjects expressed an interest in future trials of the same duration. For trials of longer duration, this percentage decreased to 66%. Approximately half did not object to participation in future trials involving placebos, and just over one third indicated that they would either definitely (8%) or probably (27%) have joined the calcium trial even if they had to pay some study expenses out of pocket. Over 90% indicated they would continue taking the calcium pills if calcium is shown to be effective. The level of perceived benefits was positively associated with reported interest in participating in future trials of the same and longer durations, and the level of reported difficulty with trial pills and procedures was inversely related to interest in future placebo-controlled trials. The results of this study, in conjunction with results of prospective studies of trial participation, may be applied in future chemoprevention trials to facilitate recruitment, reduce attrition, and promote positive trial experiences for participants by emphasizing frequently reported benefits and minimizing frequently reported barriers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8974209     DOI: 10.1016/s0197-2456(96)00063-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Control Clin Trials        ISSN: 0197-2456


  8 in total

1.  Chemoprevention Trial Feasibility Using Botanicals in Exceptionally High Risk Populations for Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Nagi B Kumar; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Mark G Alexandrow; Jhanelle Gray; Michael Schell; Steve Sutton; Eric B Haura
Journal:  J Clin Trials       Date:  2014-09

2.  Patient participation in research in the managed care environment: key perceptions of members in an HMO.

Authors:  S Purdy; J A Finkelstein; R Fletcher; C Christiansen; T S Inui
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  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

4.  Conjoint analysis of a new Chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Mike Aristides; Jack Chen; Mark Schulz; Eve Williamson; Stephen Clarke; Kaye Grant
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Cancer prone persons. A randomized screening trial based on colonoscopy: background, design and recruitment.

Authors:  F Eisinger; J P Giordanella; A Brigand; R Didelot; D Jacques; G Schenowitz; C Julian-Reynier; J F Seitz; H Sobol; J Faivre; H Allemand
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  The acceptability and impact of a randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice accessed via primary health care: qualitative study.

Authors:  Suzanne Moffatt; Joan Mackintosh; Martin White; Denise Howel; Adam Sandell
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2006-06-21       Impact factor: 3.295

7.  Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial.

Authors:  Krysia Canvin; Ann Jacoby
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2006-12-12       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Altruism, personal benefit, and anxieties: a phenomenological study of healthy volunteers' experiences in a placebo-controlled trial of duloxetine.

Authors:  Isaac N Kwakye; Matthew Garner; David S Baldwin; Susan Bamford; Verity Pinkney; Felicity L Bishop
Journal:  Hum Psychopharmacol       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.672

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.