参与者的看法支持癌症临床试验参与的益处与负担并存。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Psychosocial Oncology Pub Date : 2024-06-22 DOI:10.1080/07347332.2024.2366996
Kim Mooney-Doyle, Kathleen A Knafl, Liming Huang, Gwenyth R Wallen, Connie M Ulrich
{"title":"参与者的看法支持癌症临床试验参与的益处与负担并存。","authors":"Kim Mooney-Doyle, Kathleen A Knafl, Liming Huang, Gwenyth R Wallen, Connie M Ulrich","doi":"10.1080/07347332.2024.2366996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To advance oncology treatment for adults, comprehensive understanding of how and why people decide to enroll in, remain in, and withdraw from cancer clinical trials is needed. While quantitative findings provide insights into these benefits and burdens, they provide limited understanding of how adults with cancer appraise their situation and approach decisions to undertake a clinical trial. The goal of this mixed methods analysis was to conceptualize participants' assessment of benefits and burdens related to cancer clinical trial participation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This sub-group analysis of 21 participants was part of a larger sequential, explanatory mixed methods study. We used Creamer's integrated approach to linking quantitative and qualitative data to assess convergence, with qualitative data explaining quantitative results. Participants were grouped into four categories based on quantitative benefit/burden scores and thematic analysis of their qualitative data was used to describe these categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across groups participants varied in descriptions of benefits and burdens of cancer clinical trial participation and reasons for participating. Those reporting high benefit/low burden described \"seizing the opportunity to participate;\" those reporting low benefit/low burden described \"taking responsibility\" through trial participation; those reporting low benefit/high burden described how they were \"willing to endure,\" and those with high benefit/high burden emphasized \"deciding to act.\"</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants' qualitative descriptions of benefits and burdens were more nuanced and dynamic than reflected in their quantitative ratings. Thus, current measures may be missing important concepts, such as logistic challenges of trial participation. Our results have implications for consenting procedures and decisional support guidance offered to patients and their caregivers.</p>","PeriodicalId":47451,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychosocial Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Participants' perceptions support the coexistence of benefits and burdens of cancer clinical trial participation.\",\"authors\":\"Kim Mooney-Doyle, Kathleen A Knafl, Liming Huang, Gwenyth R Wallen, Connie M Ulrich\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07347332.2024.2366996\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To advance oncology treatment for adults, comprehensive understanding of how and why people decide to enroll in, remain in, and withdraw from cancer clinical trials is needed. While quantitative findings provide insights into these benefits and burdens, they provide limited understanding of how adults with cancer appraise their situation and approach decisions to undertake a clinical trial. The goal of this mixed methods analysis was to conceptualize participants' assessment of benefits and burdens related to cancer clinical trial participation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This sub-group analysis of 21 participants was part of a larger sequential, explanatory mixed methods study. We used Creamer's integrated approach to linking quantitative and qualitative data to assess convergence, with qualitative data explaining quantitative results. Participants were grouped into four categories based on quantitative benefit/burden scores and thematic analysis of their qualitative data was used to describe these categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across groups participants varied in descriptions of benefits and burdens of cancer clinical trial participation and reasons for participating. Those reporting high benefit/low burden described \\\"seizing the opportunity to participate;\\\" those reporting low benefit/low burden described \\\"taking responsibility\\\" through trial participation; those reporting low benefit/high burden described how they were \\\"willing to endure,\\\" and those with high benefit/high burden emphasized \\\"deciding to act.\\\"</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants' qualitative descriptions of benefits and burdens were more nuanced and dynamic than reflected in their quantitative ratings. Thus, current measures may be missing important concepts, such as logistic challenges of trial participation. Our results have implications for consenting procedures and decisional support guidance offered to patients and their caregivers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Psychosocial Oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Psychosocial Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2024.2366996\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychosocial Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2024.2366996","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:为了促进成人肿瘤治疗,需要全面了解人们如何以及为何决定参加、继续参加或退出癌症临床试验。虽然定量研究结果提供了对这些益处和负担的深入了解,但它们对成人癌症患者如何评估自己的情况以及如何做出参加临床试验的决定提供的了解却很有限。这项混合方法分析的目的是将参与者对参与癌症临床试验的益处和负担的评估概念化:这项对 21 名参与者进行的分组分析是一项更大规模的顺序解释性混合方法研究的一部分。我们采用了 Creamer 的综合方法,将定量和定性数据联系起来以评估趋同性,用定性数据解释定量结果。根据定量收益/负担得分将参与者分为四类,并对他们的定性数据进行主题分析,以描述这些类别:各组参与者对参与癌症临床试验的益处和负担以及参与原因的描述各不相同。报告高获益/低负担的参与者描述了 "抓住机会参与";报告低获益/低负担的参与者描述了通过参与试验 "承担责任";报告低获益/高负担的参与者描述了他们如何 "愿意忍受",而高获益/高负担的参与者强调了 "决定行动":参与者对收益和负担的定性描述比定量评价更细致、更动态。因此,目前的测量方法可能会遗漏一些重要的概念,如参与试验的后勤挑战。我们的研究结果对同意程序以及为患者及其护理人员提供的决策支持指导具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Participants' perceptions support the coexistence of benefits and burdens of cancer clinical trial participation.

Background: To advance oncology treatment for adults, comprehensive understanding of how and why people decide to enroll in, remain in, and withdraw from cancer clinical trials is needed. While quantitative findings provide insights into these benefits and burdens, they provide limited understanding of how adults with cancer appraise their situation and approach decisions to undertake a clinical trial. The goal of this mixed methods analysis was to conceptualize participants' assessment of benefits and burdens related to cancer clinical trial participation.

Materials and methods: This sub-group analysis of 21 participants was part of a larger sequential, explanatory mixed methods study. We used Creamer's integrated approach to linking quantitative and qualitative data to assess convergence, with qualitative data explaining quantitative results. Participants were grouped into four categories based on quantitative benefit/burden scores and thematic analysis of their qualitative data was used to describe these categories.

Results: Across groups participants varied in descriptions of benefits and burdens of cancer clinical trial participation and reasons for participating. Those reporting high benefit/low burden described "seizing the opportunity to participate;" those reporting low benefit/low burden described "taking responsibility" through trial participation; those reporting low benefit/high burden described how they were "willing to endure," and those with high benefit/high burden emphasized "deciding to act."

Conclusions: Participants' qualitative descriptions of benefits and burdens were more nuanced and dynamic than reflected in their quantitative ratings. Thus, current measures may be missing important concepts, such as logistic challenges of trial participation. Our results have implications for consenting procedures and decisional support guidance offered to patients and their caregivers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Psychosocial Oncology
Journal of Psychosocial Oncology PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Here is your single source of integrated information on providing the best psychosocial care possible from the knowledge available from many disciplines.The Journal of Psychosocial Oncology is an essential source for up-to-date clinical and research material geared toward health professionals who provide psychosocial services to cancer patients, their families, and their caregivers. The journal—the first interdisciplinary resource of its kind—is in its third decade of examining exploratory and hypothesis testing and presenting program evaluation research on critical areas, including: the stigma of cancer; employment and personal problems facing cancer patients; patient education.
期刊最新文献
Correction. Understanding the patient-spouse communication experience during chemotherapy for gastric cancer: A qualitative study. Quality of life and unmet needs of late-stage and metastatic colorectal cancer survivors: An integrative review. The meaning-making process in the re-entry phase: A qualitative focus group study with patients treated for breast cancer or melanoma. Adaptation and feasibility of the Swedish Promoting Resilience in Stress Management intervention targeting adolescents and young adults newly diagnosed with cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1