RAW Study Version 3.4

NCT ID: NCT00280722

Last Updated: 2017-11-06

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

WITHDRAWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2006-01-31

Study Completion Date

2006-11-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of carrying out a full scale randomised controlled trial to compare the effects of giving additional information versus no additional information to patients prior to their first oncology appointment.

Hypothesis: Patients with some awareness of research provided prior to clinic appointment in oncology and aware of the possibility of being invited to take part in a clinical trial are more likely to agree to participate.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The recruitment of cancer patients into clinical trials may be hindered by several factors such as limited understanding of medical research, a lack of information about the type of research on offer for patients, over load of information when given a new and life limiting diagnosis. Nor does the Churchill Hospital inform patients that research is an integral part of the every day life and business of the hospital.

Does increasing research awareness impact on accrual?

This initial study aims to establish the feasibility of a larger study to gather the evidence required to investigate whether patients need some information indicating that a hospital participates in research, and what it may mean to the individuals to participate, including new terminology; thus reducing fear and anxiety and ultimately increasing the accrual of cancer patients into cancer clinical trials. Prior knowledge of patients' attitudes to involvement in clinical trials might assist communication about trials and encourage more doctors to approach eligible patients. In the NHS there is always a fear of cost implications, however a study comparing two New Patient Information Packs (NPIPs) showed no differences were detected between a full pack and a mini pack and given the cost, the mini-New Patient Information Pack (mini-NPIP) was the preferred approach. This has influenced the decision to provide only a brief leaflet of information to patients prior to their first appointment.

The National Cancer Research Network (NCRN) was formed three years ago with the aim to provide the NHS infrastructure to support and improve patient care by speeding up access to the best treatment and care, provide information and support to our patients and improve the speed of research by increasing the number of patients into clinical trials. In the Thames Valley Cancer Research Network (TVCRN) accrual has increased from 2.7% in 2001-2 to 8.3% in 2003-4. The infrastructure to support research is in place, clinicians are informed and have relevant nursing and administrative support to offer trials to patients and cope with the increased numbers of patients taking part. There appears to be a deficit in the research knowledge and understanding of the general public. It is easier and less stressful to 'opt out' when faced with a new diagnosis and complicated treatment options than to consider, in addition, a clinical trial. By measuring accrual and evaluating the patients' response to information about research I intend to investigate the feasibility of a larger study to provide the evidence to investigate the need for pre-first-visit research information. Thus investigating the requirement, importance and need for information for the patients before their first oncology appointment and the general public.

Ellis, Buttow and Tattersall have published two studies conducted with breast cancer patients: the first in 2001 found that that women who have a better knowledge of clinical trials are more willing to consider participating in a clinical trial, however in 2002 patients who had received a booklet of information about research for patients were significantly less likely to consider participating in a randomised clinical trial (RCT). Using a very large sample (n=2331) Jenkins, Fallowfield and Saul showed that the vast majority of cancer patients questioned wanted a great deal of specific information concerning their illness and treatment.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Cancer

Keywords

Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.

Randomised Intervention Leaflet Information Awareness Behaviour Research

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Primary Study Purpose

OTHER

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

patient information leaflet

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Exclusion Criteria

2. 18 years or over. (The project will take place in adult clinic - all children \& young people under 18 are seen and cared for in the paediatric unit.) -


1. New patient referrals whose appointments are being planned in less than 3 days are often telephoned with details and will not have sufficient time to receive the information by post and read it prior to their appointment.
2. Vulnerable patients under 18 years of age.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Liverpool John Moores University

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

National Cancer Research Network

NETWORK

Sponsor Role collaborator

Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Susan J Palmer

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Thames Valley Cancer Research Network

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Churchill Hospital

Oxford, , United Kingdom

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United Kingdom

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Stevens T, Ahmedzai SH. Why do breast cancer patients decline entry into randomised trials and how do they feel about their decision later: a prospective, longitudinal, in-depth interview study. Patient Educ Couns. 2004 Mar;52(3):341-8. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00041-7.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 14998605 (View on PubMed)

Fallowfield LJ, Jenkins V, Brennan C, Sawtell M, Moynihan C, Souhami RL. Attitudes of patients to randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy. Eur J Cancer. 1998 Sep;34(10):1554-9. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(98)00193-2.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 9893627 (View on PubMed)

Mohide EA, Whelan TJ, Rath D, Gafni A, Willan AR, Czukar D, Campbell IB, Okawara GS, Neimanis M, Levine MN. A randomised trial of two information packages distributed to new cancer patients before their initial appointment at a regional cancer centre. Br J Cancer. 1996 Jun;73(12):1588-93. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1996.299.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 8664135 (View on PubMed)

Ellis PM, Butow PN, Tattersall MH, Dunn SM, Houssami N. Randomized clinical trials in oncology: understanding and attitudes predict willingness to participate. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Aug 1;19(15):3554-61. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.15.3554.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11481363 (View on PubMed)

Ellis PM, Butow PN, Tattersall MH. Informing breast cancer patients about clinical trials: a randomized clinical trial of an educational booklet. Ann Oncol. 2002 Sep;13(9):1414-23. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdf255.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12196367 (View on PubMed)

Jenkins V, Fallowfield L, Saul J. Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres. Br J Cancer. 2001 Jan 5;84(1):48-51. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1573.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11139312 (View on PubMed)

Harrison J. Why it is preferable to learn before the moment of diagnosis. In: Marie Curie Cancer Care in association with the Consumers' Advisory Group for Clinical Trials (CAG-CT) Conference: Towards Public Understanding of Clinical Trials, 16 Feb 1998, London.

Reference Type BACKGROUND

Blesing C, Palmer S, Mathews A. Thames Valley Cancer Research Network 3rd Annual Progress Report. 2004. http://www.tvcn.org.uk/research/annualreport.

Reference Type BACKGROUND

Mossman J, Boudioni M, Slevin ML. Cancer information: a cost-effective intervention. Eur J Cancer. 1999 Oct;35(11):1587-91. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00195-1.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 10673966 (View on PubMed)

Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, Lilford RJ. Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a "trial effect". J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Mar;54(3):217-24. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00305-x.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11223318 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

4858

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id