Information about cancer clinical trials: An analysis of Internet resources

European Journal of Cancer

Volumn 43, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 1574-1580

  Carden, Craig P ^a   Jefford, Michael ^b,c,d   Rosenthal, Mark A ^a  

^a ROYAL MELBOURNE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b PETER MACCALLUM CANCER CENTRE   (Australia)

^c CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY CENTRE   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cancer; Clinical trials; Information; Internet; Patient

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER; ETHICS; EVALUATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION SERVICE; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATION; ONLINE SYSTEM; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STANDARD;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC;

EID: 34250007934     PISSN: 09598049     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.04.016     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. National commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research: The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, April 18, 1979, online at (accessed 11.11.2006).
2. (accessed 11.11.2006).
3. Simon M.S., Du W., Flaherty L., et al. Factors associated with breast cancer clinical trials participation and enrolment at a large Academic Medical Center. J Clin Oncol 22 (2004) 2046-2052
4. Lara Jr. P.N., Higdon R., Lim N., et al. Prospective evaluation of cancer clinical trial accrual patterns: identifying potential barriers to enrolment. J Clin Oncol 19 6 (2001) 1728-1733
5. Harris interactive. Misconceptions and lack of awareness greatly reduce recruitment for cancer clinical trials. Healthcare News at (accessed 11.11.2006).
6. Helft P.R., Eckles R.E., and Johnson-Calley C.S. Use of the internet to obtain cancer information among cancer patients at an urban county hospital. J Clin Oncol 23 (2005) 4954-4962
7. Dickerson S., Reinhart A.M., Feeley T.H., et al. Patient internet use for health information at three urban primary care clinics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 11 (2004) 499-504
8. Avis S., et al. Factors associated with participation in Breast Cancer Treatment Clinical Trials 24 12 (2006) 1860-1867
9. (accessed 6.08.2006).
10. (accessed (06.08.2006).
11. (accessed 06.08.2006).
12. (accessed 06.08.2006).
13. (accessed 06.08.2006).
14. (accessed 06.08.2006).
15. (accessed 06.08.2006).
16. (accessed 06.08.2006).
17. Doak C.C., Doak L.G., and Root J.H. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. 2nd ed. (1996), Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA p. 49
18. McLaughlin G.H. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Reading 12 8 (1969) 639-646
19. Bailin A., and Grafstein A. The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: a critique. Language Commun 21 (2001) 285-301
20. Friedman D.B., Hoffman-Goetz L., and Arocha J.F. Health literacy and the World Wide Web: comparing the readability of leading incident cancers on the internet. Med Info Internet Med 31 1 (2006) 67-87
21. Doak C, Doak L, Miller K. Suitablility Assessment of Materials (SAM), In: Presentation at American Public Health Association annual meeting, Washington (DC); 1994.
22. Kaphingst K.A., Zanfini C.J., and Emmons K.M. Accessibility of web sites containing colorectal cancer information to adults with limited literacy. Cancer Causes Contr 17 2 (2006) 147-151
23. Weintraub D., Maliske S.L., Fink A., Choe S., and Litwin M.S. Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials. Patient Educ Couns 55 2 (2004) 275-280
24. Rees C.E., Ford J.E., and Sheard C.E. Patient information leaflets for prostate cancer: which leaflets should healthcare professionals recommend?. Patinet Educ Couns 49 3 (2003) 263-272
25. Gagliardi A., and Jadad A. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ 324 (2002) 569-573
26. Kim P., Eng T.R., Deering M.J., and Maxfield A. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review. BMJ 318 (1999) 647-649
27. Eysenbach G., Powell J., Kuss O., and Sa E. Empirical studies assessing the Quality of Health Information on the world wide web. JAMA 287 (2002) 2691-2700
28. United States Department of Health and Human Services, available at: (accessed 18.08.2006).
29. Charnock D., Shepperd S., Needham G., and Gann R. DISCERN: and instument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidem Comm Health 53 2 (1999) 105-111
30. Rees C.E., Ford J.E., and Sheard C.E. Evaluating the reliability of DISCERN: a tool for assessing the quality of written patient information on treatment choices. Pat Educ Couns 47 3 (2002) 273-275
31. Joffe S., Cook E.F., and Clark J.W. Altruism among patients in cancer clinical trials. Proc Am Soc Clinic Oncol 22 abstr. (2003) 2103
32. (accessed 12.12.2006).
33. Centre for Literacy of Quebec. Background document of Literacy and Health. Available at: (accessed 23.08.2006).
34. Friedman D.B., Hoffman-Goetz L., and Arocha J.F. A systemic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav 33 3 (2006) 352-373
35. John A.K. A critical appraisal of internet resources on colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 8 (2005) 217-223
36. Birru M.S., Monaco V.M., and Charles L. Internet usage by low-literacy adults seeking health information: an observational analysis. J Med Internet Res 6 3 (2006) e25
37. Chernecky C., Macklin D., and Waller J. Internet design preferences of patients with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 33 4 (2006) 787-792