Attitudes towards clinical research among cancer trial participants and non-participants: An interview study using a grounded theory approach

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 234-240

  Madsen, S M ^a   Holm, S ^b   Riis, P ^a  

^a GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MASS MEDIUM; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MIDDLE AGED; MORALITY; MOTIVATION; NEOPLASM; PATIENT EDUCATION; PHYSICIAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RESEARCH SUBJECT; TRUST;

ADULT; AGED; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS MEDIA; MIDDLE AGED; MORAL OBLIGATIONS; MOTIVATION; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT EDUCATION; PHYSICIANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; TRUST;

EID: 34147222764     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.015255     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Grunfeld E, Zitzelsberger L, Coristine M, et al. Barriers and facilitators to enrollment in cancer clinical trials: qualitative study of the perspectives of clinical research associates. Cancer 2002;95:1577-83.
2. Comis RL, Miller JD, Aldige CR, et al. Public attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:830-5.
3. Madsen SM, Holm S, Riis P. Ethical aspects of clinical trials: the attitudes of the public and out-patients. J Intern Med 1999; 245:571-9.
4. Madsen SM, Holm S, Davidsen B, et al. Ethical aspects of clinical trials: the attitudes of participants in two non-cancer trials. J Intern Med 2000;248:461-73.
5. Madsen SM, Mirza MR, Holm S, et al. Attitudes towards clinical research of participants and non-participants. J Intern Med 2002;251:56-68.
6. Ellis PM. Attitudes towards and participation in randomised clinical trials in oncology: a review of the literature. Ann Oncol 2000;11:939-45.
7. Solomon MJ, Pager CK, Young JM, et al. Patient entry into randomized controlled trials of colorectal cancer treatment: factors influencing participation. Sugery 2003;133:608-13.
8. Verheggen FW, Nieman FH, Reerink E, et al. Patient satisfaction with clinical trial participation. Int J Qual Health Care 1998;10:319-30.
9. Featherstone K, Donovan JL. Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1998;317:1177-80.
10. Snowdon C, Garcia J, Elbourne D. Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:1337-55.
11. Featherstone K, Donovan JL. "Why don't they just tell me straight, why allocate it?" The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med 2002; 55:709-19.
12. Cox K. Assessing the quality of life of patients in phase I and II anti-cancer drug trials: interviews versus questionnaires. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:921-34.
13. Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995;311:42-5.
14. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C. The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. Int J Law Psychiatry 1982;5:319-29.
15. Robinson EJ, Kerr C, Stevens A, et al. Lay conceptions of the ethical and scientific justifications for random allocation in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med 2004 ;58:811-24.
16. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998.
17. Verheggen FW, Nieman F, Jonkers R. Determinants of patient participation in clinical studies requiring informed consent: why patients enter a clinic trial. Pat Educ Couns 1998; 35:111-25.
18. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC, et al. Patients' willingness to enter clinical trials: measuring the association with perceived benefit an preference for decision participation. Soc Sci Med 991;32:35-42.
19. Ubel PA, Merz JF, Shea J, et al. How preliminary data affect peoples stated willingness to enter a hypothetical randomized controlled trial. J Invest Med 1997;45: 561-6.
20. Johnson N, Lilford RJ, Brazier W. At what level of collective equipoise does a clinical trial become ethical? J Med Ethics 1991;17:30-4.
21. Mackillop WJ, Palmer MJ, O'Sullivan B, et al. Clinical trials in cancer: the role of surrogate patients in defining what constitutes an ethically acceptable clinical experiment. Br J Cancer 1989;59:388-95.
22. Fallowfield L, Jenkins V, Brennan C, et al. Attitudes of patients to randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy. Eur J Cancer 1998;34:1554-9.
23. Jenkins V, Leach L, Fallowfield L, et al. Describing randomisation: patients' and the public's preferences compared with clinicians' practice. Br J Cancer 2002; 87: 854-8.
24. Valentino J, Andrykowski MA, Wood TA. Population attitudes toward oncology clinical trials. J Ky Med Assoc 1999;97:111-7.
25. Slevin M, Mossman J, Bowling A, et al. Volunteers or victims: patients views of randomised cancer clinical trials. Br J Cancer 1995;71: 1270-4.
26. Wright JR, Crooks D, Ellis PM, et al. Factors that influence the recruitment of patients to phase III studies in oncology: the perspective of the clinical research associate. Cancer 2002; 95: 1584-91.
27. Langley C, Gray S, Selley S, et al. Clinicians' attitudes to recruitment to randomised trials in cancer care: a qualitative study. J Health Serv Res Policy 2000;5:164-9.