IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v28y2019i13-14p2443-2461.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cancer patients’ perceptions of factors influencing their decisions on participation in clinical drug trials: A qualitative meta‐synthesis

Author

Listed:
  • Zandra Engelbak Nielsen
  • Connie Bøttcher Berthelsen

Abstract

Aims and objectives To examine cancer patients’ perceptions of factors that may influence their decisions on participating in phase I–III clinical drug trials. Background The number of cancer participants in clinical drug trials has increased rapidly in Denmark in recent years. The rights, safety and well‐being of patients considering participation are protected by the international, ethical and scientific principles. A meta‐synthesis was conducted to enable health professionals to support cancer patients who are considering trial participation in accordance with the above principles. Design Meta‐synthesis. Methods A qualitative meta‐synthesis, as described by Sandelowski and Barroso, was conducted based on a literature search in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Nine reports were found eligible and were included. The PRISMA checklist was used. Results A framework was developed, and patients’ perceptions of the factors influencing their decisions were identified, namely patients’ perceptions of their relatives, the physician, the hope of therapeutic benefit, altruism, having other options and living with cancer. Conclusions This study shows that cancer patients’ decisions on participation in clinical drug trials are influenced by their perceptions of trust towards the physician, their relatives’ attitudes and the consequences participation might have for their families. Patients are motivated to participate due to the hope of therapeutic benefit and for altruistic reasons. The factors influencing their decisions to participate include a cost‐benefit consideration, which in turn may be subject to the patient's perception of having other options available besides participation. This may be related to the patient's attitude towards living with cancer, and the decision can be a way of trying to cope with the psychological aspects of living with cancer. Relevance to clinical practice The results of this meta‐synthesis offer insight into patients’ perceptions of what may influence their decisions, and they enable health professionals to support patients making such decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Zandra Engelbak Nielsen & Connie Bøttcher Berthelsen, 2019. "Cancer patients’ perceptions of factors influencing their decisions on participation in clinical drug trials: A qualitative meta‐synthesis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(13-14), pages 2443-2461, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:13-14:p:2443-2461
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14785
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14785
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14785?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George, S. & Duran, N. & Norris, K., 2014. "A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 104(2), pages 16-31.
    2. Margaret M. Byrne & Stacey L. Tannenbaum & Stefan Glück & Judith Hurley & Michael Antoni, 2014. "Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 116-126, January.
    3. Gaston, Christine M. & Mitchell, Geoffrey, 2005. "Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(10), pages 2252-2264, November.
    4. Alessandro Liberati & Douglas G Altman & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Cynthia Mulrow & Peter C Gøtzsche & John P A Ioannidis & Mike Clarke & P J Devereaux & Jos Kleijnen & David Moher, 2009. "The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-28, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Margarita Echeverri & David Anderson & Anna María Nápoles & Jacqueline M. Haas & Marc E. Johnson & Friar Sergio A. Serrano, 2018. "Cancer Health Literacy and Willingness to Participate in Cancer Research and Donate Bio-Specimens," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Ludoviko Zirimenya & Fatima Mahmud-Ajeigbe & Ruth McQuillan & You Li, 2020. "A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between urogenital schistosomiasis and HIV/AIDS infection," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, June.
    3. Trang Nguyen & Sara Holton & Thach Tran & Jane Fisher, 2019. "Informal mental health interventions for people with severe mental illness in low and lower middle-income countries: A systematic review of effectiveness," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 65(3), pages 194-206, May.
    4. Alessandro Concari & Gerjo Kok & Pim Martens, 2020. "A Systematic Literature Review of Concepts and Factors Related to Pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Waste Management Through an Interdisciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-50, May.
    5. Damiano Pizzol & Mike Trott & Igor Grabovac & Mario Antunes & Anna Claudia Colangelo & Simona Ippoliti & Cristian Petre Ilie & Anne Carrie & Nicola Veronese & Lee Smith, 2021. "Laparoscopy in Low-Income Countries: 10-Year Experience and Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-11, May.
    6. Alessandro Margherita & Emanuele Banchi & Alfredo Biffi & Gianluca di Castri & Rocco Morelli, 2022. "Beyond Total Cost Management (TCM) to Systemic Value Management (SVM): Transformational Trends and a Research Manifesto for an Evolving Discipline," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-16, October.
    7. Fabio Magnacca & Riccardo Giannetti, 2024. "Management accounting and new product development: a systematic literature review and future research directions," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 28(2), pages 651-685, June.
    8. Evans, Rhiannon & White, James & Turley, Ruth & Slater, Thomas & Morgan, Helen & Strange, Heather & Scourfield, Jonathan, 2017. "Comparison of suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and suicide in children and young people in care and non-care populations: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 122-129.
    9. Hang-Nga Mai & Jaeil Kim & Youn-Hee Choi & Du-Hyeong Lee, 2020. "Accuracy of Portable Face-Scanning Devices for Obtaining Three-Dimensional Face Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15, December.
    10. D. L. I. H. K. Peiris & Yanping Duan & Corneel Vandelanotte & Wei Liang & Min Yang & Julien Steven Baker, 2022. "Effects of In-Classroom Physical Activity Breaks on Children’s Academic Performance, Cognition, Health Behaviours and Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Tr," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-27, August.
    11. Stephanie Kovacs & Stephen E Hawes & Stephen N Maley & Emily Mosites & Ling Wong & Andy Stergachis, 2014. "Technologies for Detecting Falsified and Substandard Drugs in Low and Middle-Income Countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-11, March.
    12. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    13. Hyun Woo Lee & Jung Kyu Lee & Eunyoung Kim & Jae-Joon Yim & Chang-Hoon Lee, 2016. "The Effectiveness and Safety of Fluoroquinolone-Containing Regimen as a First-Line Treatment for Drug-Sensitive Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-15, July.
    14. Jung Soo Kim & Jinkyeong Park & Seong Yong Lim & Yeon-Mok Oh & Kwang Ha Yoo & Yong Bum Park & Seung Soo Sheen & Min-Ji Kim & K C Carriere & Ji Ye Jung & Hye Yun Park, 2015. "Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Indacaterol and Tiotropium in COPD: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, March.
    15. Giuseppe La Torre & Remigio Bova & Rosario Andrea Cocchiara & Cristina Sestili & Anna Tagliaferri & Simona Maggiacomo & Camilla Foschi & William Zomparelli & Maria Vittoria Manai & David Shaholli & Va, 2023. "What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, January.
    16. Eric P F Chow & Joseph D Tucker & Frank Y Wong & Eric J Nehl & Yanjie Wang & Xun Zhuang & Lei Zhang, 2014. "Disparities and Risks of Sexually Transmissible Infections among Men Who Have Sex with Men in China: A Meta-Analysis and Data Synthesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-13, February.
    17. Ricky D Turgeon & Michael R Kolber & Peter Loewen & Ursula Ellis & James P McCormack, 2019. "Higher versus lower doses of ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-2 receptor blockers and beta-blockers in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-18, February.
    18. Adrián Csordás & Péter Lengyel & István Füzesi, 2022. "Who Prefers Regional Products? A Systematic Literature Review of Consumer Characteristics and Attitudes in Short Food Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-17, July.
    19. Amelia S Knopf & Peter Krombach & Amy J Katz & Rebecca Baker & Gregory Zimet, 2021. "Measuring research mistrust in adolescents and adults: Validity and reliability of an adapted version of the Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-9, January.
    20. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:13-14:p:2443-2461. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.