• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

决策与乳腺癌临床试验:经验如何挑战观念

Decision-making and breast cancer clinical trials: how experience challenges attitudes.

作者信息

Mancini Julien, Genève Jean, Dalenc Florence, Genre Dominique, Monnier Alain, Kerbrat Pierre, Largillier Rémy, Serin Daniel, Rios Maria, Roché Henri, Jimenez Marta, Tarpin Carole, Julian Reynier Claire

机构信息

INSERM, UMR379, Epidemiology and Social Sciences Unit, Paoli-Calmettes Institute, Marseille, F-13273, France.

出版信息

Contemp Clin Trials. 2007 Nov;28(6):684-94. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2007.03.001. Epub 2007 Mar 12.

DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2007.03.001
PMID:17434812
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to measure women's preferences about decision-making and their impact to participate or not to a hypothetical randomised controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS

We surveyed prospectively breast cancer patients invited to participate in a clinical RCT (group 1a=201 acceptances, group 1b=66 refusals) or not invited (group 2=188). All women had the same treatment.

RESULTS

Decision-making preferences of patients who had refused clinical RCT entry were more patient's centred (72.3%) compared to those of patients who accepted (35.0%, P<0.001). Altruism was not a significant determinant of patients' participation. Randomisation was considered acceptable in 52.0% (group 1a) compared to 16.9% and 21.1% for group 1b or group 2, respectively (P<0.001). It was the main predictor of willingness to participate in a hypothetical RCT (adjusted odds ratio (OR(adj)) 4.6; 95% confidence interval [2.7-7.7]; P<0.001) with the patient group allocation (OR(adj) group 1a=5.0 [2.9-8.7]; group 1b=0.2 [0.0-0.8]; group 2=1 [referent]; P<0.001). After multivariate adjustment, willingness to participate was also significantly related with medical decision-making preferences (OR(adj) 2.2 [1.0-4.9]; P=0.045), with the feeling of being unable to refuse a doctor's proposal (OR(adj) 1.8 [1.1-3.2]; P=0.031), and with satisfaction with doctors' communication (OR(adj) 3.1 [1.5-7.8]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' acceptance to participate in a RCT is preferred to be doctor's decision, whereas refusal is a personal one. When proposing a RCT, doctors must deal with patients' a priori negative feelings about randomisation. They should thoroughly discuss the reasons for and importance of randomisation as well as the other aspects of participating in the trial in order to give patients all of the information they need to make an informed decision.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在衡量女性对于决策的偏好以及她们参与或不参与一项假设性随机对照试验(RCT)的影响因素。

方法

我们对前瞻性招募的乳腺癌患者进行了调查,这些患者被邀请参与一项临床RCT(1a组 = 201名接受者,1b组 = 66名拒绝者)或未被邀请(2组 = 188名)。所有女性接受相同的治疗。

结果

与接受临床RCT入组的患者相比,拒绝临床RCT入组的患者的决策偏好更以患者为中心(72.3% 对35.0%,P < 0.001)。利他主义并非患者参与的显著决定因素。52.0%的1a组患者认为随机分组是可接受的,而1b组和2组分别为16.9%和21.1%(P < 0.001)。随机分组是参与假设性RCT意愿的主要预测因素(调整优势比(OR(adj))4.6;95%置信区间[2.7 - 7.7];P < 0.001),同时还有患者分组情况(OR(adj):1a组 = 5.0 [2.9 - 8.7];1b组 = 0.2 [0.0 - 0.8];2组 = 1 [参照组];P < 0.001)。经过多变量调整后,参与意愿还与医疗决策偏好显著相关(OR(adj) 2.2 [1.0 - 4.9];P = 0.045),与感觉无法拒绝医生的提议相关(OR(adj) 1.8 [1.1 - 3.2];P = 0.031),以及与对医生沟通的满意度相关(OR(adj) 3.1 [1.5 - 7.8];P < 0.001)。

结论

患者参与RCT的接受情况最好由医生决定,而拒绝则是个人决定。在提议进行RCT时,医生必须应对患者对随机分组先入为主的负面情绪。他们应全面讨论随机分组的理由和重要性以及参与试验的其他方面,以便为患者提供做出明智决定所需的所有信息。

相似文献

1
Decision-making and breast cancer clinical trials: how experience challenges attitudes.决策与乳腺癌临床试验:经验如何挑战观念
Contemp Clin Trials. 2007 Nov;28(6):684-94. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2007.03.001. Epub 2007 Mar 12.
2
Assessment of care by breast cancer patients participating or not participating in a randomized controlled trial: a report with the Patients' Committee for Clinical Trials of the Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.参与或未参与随机对照试验的乳腺癌患者的护理评估:法国国家抗癌联盟临床试验患者委员会的一份报告
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 20;25(21):3038-44. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.9367. Epub 2007 May 29.
3
Hypertensive patients' willingness to participate in placebo-controlled trials: implications for recruitment efficiency.高血压患者参与安慰剂对照试验的意愿:对招募效率的影响。
Am Heart J. 2003 Dec;146(6):985-92. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8703(03)00507-6.
4
Patients' regrets after participating in a randomized controlled trials depended on their involvement in the decision making.患者参与随机对照试验后的遗憾取决于他们在决策中的参与程度。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Jun;65(6):635-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.12.003. Epub 2012 Mar 19.
5
Survey of the impact of randomised clinical trials on surgical practice in France. French Associations for Research in Surgery (AURC and ACAPEM). Association Universitaire de Recherche en Chirurgie. Association des Chirurgiens de l'Assistance Publique pour l'Evaluation Médicale.法国随机临床试验对外科手术实践影响的调查。法国外科研究协会(AURC和ACAPEM)。大学外科研究协会。公共援助外科医生医学评估协会。
Eur J Surg. 1999 Feb;165(2):87-94. doi: 10.1080/110241599750007243.
6
Psychological and clinical factors implicated in decision making about a trial of low-dose tamoxifen in hormone replacement therapy users.与激素替代疗法使用者中低剂量他莫昔芬试验决策相关的心理和临床因素。
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 20;26(9):1537-43. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.6739.
7
Factors that influence a patient's decision to participate in a phase I cancer clinical trial.影响患者参与一期癌症临床试验决策的因素。
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2000 Oct;27(9):1435-8.
8
Patient participation in clinical decision-making in nursing: A comparative study of nurses' and patients' perceptions.患者参与护理临床决策:护士与患者认知的比较研究
J Clin Nurs. 2006 Dec;15(12):1498-508. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01464.x.
9
Effects of media information on cancer patients' opinions, feelings, decision-making process and physician-patient communication.媒体信息对癌症患者的观点、感受、决策过程及医患沟通的影响。
Cancer. 2004 Mar 1;100(5):1077-84. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20050.
10
Understanding the impact of breast reconstruction on the surgical decision-making process for breast cancer.了解乳房重建对乳腺癌手术决策过程的影响。
Cancer. 2008 Feb 1;112(3):489-94. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23214.

引用本文的文献

1
Analysis of the perceptions and attitudes to participate in radical and palliative clinical trials among Chinese lymphoma and head/neck cancer patients.中国淋巴瘤和头颈癌患者参与根治性和姑息性临床试验的认知与态度分析
J Cancer. 2019 Jun 2;10(14):3253-3258. doi: 10.7150/jca.30057. eCollection 2019.
2
Patient consent to publication and data sharing in industry and NIH-funded clinical trials.患者对行业资助及美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)资助的临床试验中发表研究成果和数据共享的同意。
Trials. 2018 May 3;19(1):269. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2651-2.
3
Effect of Unblinding on Participants' Perceptions of Risk and Confidence in a Large Double-Blind Clinical Trial of Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.
在一项大型乳腺癌化疗双盲临床试验中,揭盲对参与者对风险和信心的感知的影响。
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Jun;1(3):369-74. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0246.
4
Factors influencing participation in a randomized controlled resistance exercise intervention study in breast cancer patients during radiotherapy.放疗期间影响乳腺癌患者参与随机对照抗阻运动干预研究的因素。
BMC Cancer. 2015 Mar 27;15:186. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1213-1.
5
Cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation: an integrative review with implications for patients' relational autonomy.癌症患者参与临床试验的决策制定:一项对患者关系自主性有影响的综合综述
Support Care Cancer. 2015 Apr;23(4):1169-96. doi: 10.1007/s00520-014-2581-9. Epub 2015 Jan 17.
6
Older adults newly diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma and treatment decision making.新诊断出有症状骨髓瘤的老年人及治疗决策
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014 Jul 1;41(4):411-9. doi: 10.1188/14.ONF.411-419.
7
Insecurities of women regarding breast cancer research: a qualitative study.女性对乳腺癌研究的不安全感:一项定性研究。
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 2;8(12):e81770. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081770. eCollection 2013.
8
Reasons for and against participation in studies of medicinal therapies for women with breast cancer: a debate.支持和反对参与乳腺癌女性医学疗法研究的理由:一场辩论。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Mar 11;12:25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-25.
9
Assessing the impact of user-centered research on a clinical trial eHealth tool via counterbalanced research design.通过平衡研究设计评估以用户为中心的研究对临床试验电子健康工具的影响。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 Jan-Feb;18(1):24-31. doi: 10.1136/jamia.2010.006122.