Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 May 10;104(10):1535-43.
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.119. Epub 2011 Apr 12.

Clinicians' attitudes towards clinical trials of cancer therapy

E Ford  1 , V Jenkins, L Fallowfield, N Stuart, D Farewell, V Farewell
Affiliations

Clinicians' attitudes towards clinical trials of cancer therapy

E Ford et al. Br J Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Patient accrual into cancer clinical trials remains at low levels. This survey elicited attitudes and practices of cancer clinicians towards clinical trials.

Method: The 43-item Clinicians Attitudes to Clinical Trials Questionnaire was completed by participants in an intervention study aimed at improving multi-disciplinary involvement in randomised trials. Responses from 13 items were summed to form a research-orientation score.

Results: Eighty-seven clinicians (78%) returned questionnaires. Physicians, more often than surgeons, chose to prioritise prolonging a patient's life, recruited ≥50% of patients into trials and attended more research-focussed conferences. Clinicians at specialist centres were more positive about trials with no-treatment arms than those at district general hospitals, more likely to believe clinician, rather than patient reluctance to participate was the greater obstacle to trial accrual, and preferred national and international to local recognition. Clinicians belonging to breast and colorectal teams were less disappointed about not enrolling patients in trials and more accepting of no-treatment arm trials. Research orientation was higher in physicians than surgeons and higher in specialist centres than district hospitals.

Conclusions: This study provides greater understanding of clinicians' attitudes to trials. Results have been used to inform training interventions for clinicians targeting the problem of low and selective accrual.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overall ‘Teams Talking About Trials’ project. *Data presented in this paper.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Antman K, Amato D, Wood W, Corson J, Suit H, Proppe K, Carey R, Greenberger J, Wilson R, Frei E (1985) Selection bias in clinical-trials. J Clin Oncol 3: 1142–1147 - PubMed
    1. Caldwell PHY, Craig JC, Butow PN (2005) Barriers to Australian physicians’ and paediatricians’ involvement in randomised controlled trials. Med J Aust 182: 59–62 - PubMed
    1. Castel P, Negrier S, Boissel J-P (2006) Why don’t cancer patients enter clinical trials? A review. Eur J Cancer 42: 1744–1748 - PubMed
    1. Christian MC, Trimble EL (2003) Increasing participation of physicians and patients from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups in national cancer institute-sponsored clinical trials. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12: 277s–283s - PubMed
    1. Cottin V, Arpin D, Lasset C, Cordier JF, Brune J, Chauvin F, Trillet-Lenoir V (1999) Small-cell lung cancer: Patients included in clinical trials are not representative of the patient population as a whole. Ann Oncol 10: 809–815 - PubMed

Publication types