CancerNCT00280722
RAW Study Version 3.4
A study testing patient information leaflet in people with Cancer, run by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Cancer
- What is being tested?
- patient information leaflet
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- Jan 2006to Nov 2006
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patient requiring first oncology appointment whose appointments are being planned more than 3 days in advance. (see exclusion criteria for reason)
- 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.) -
Who cannot join
- 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.
- Vulnerable patients under 18 years of age.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Does Increasing Research Awareness Impact on Accrual? A Feasibility Study. Protocol Version 3.4 Dated April 2005.
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.
Read the detailed description
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
- Cancer
- Being tested
- patient information leaflet
- Keywords
- Randomised, Intervention, Leaflet, Information, Awareness, Behaviour, Research
- Medical subject headings
- Neoplasms, Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
patient information leafletBehavioural
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Whether it is feasible to carry out a full scale randomised controlled trial to compare the effect of giving additional information versus no additional information to patients prior to their first oncology appointment.
Secondary outcomes (5)
Whether existing and/or acquired research awareness may influence participation.
Development of the research information leaflet.
Development, testing and validation of the data collection methods.
Number of questionnaires returned.
Realistic data for estimating sample sizes in the larger study.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Jan 2006 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2006
- Study completionNov 2006 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (10)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Liverpool John Moores University, National Cancer Research Network
- Investigators
- Susan J Palmer, Principal investigator, Thames Valley Cancer Research Network
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00280722
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 4858
- Status last verified
- Jan 2006
- First submitted
- 20 Jan 2006
- Last updated
- 6 Nov 2017
- Results posted
- No
Publications
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.
PubMed 14998605Fallowfield 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.
PubMed 9893627Mohide 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.
PubMed 8664135Ellis 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.
PubMed 11481363Ellis 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.
PubMed 12196367Jenkins 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.
PubMed 11139312Harrison 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.
Blesing C, Palmer S, Mathews A. Thames Valley Cancer Research Network 3rd Annual Progress Report. 2004. http://www.tvcn.org.uk/research/annualreport.
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.
PubMed 10673966Braunholtz 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.
PubMed 11223318
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 6 Nov 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Does Increasing Research Awareness Impact on Accrual? A Feasibility Study. Protocol Version 3.4 Dated April 2005.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00280722
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 4858
- Conditions
- Cancer
- Keywords
- Randomised, Intervention, Leaflet, Information, Awareness, Behaviour, Research
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Withdrawn
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS TrustUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Liverpool John Moores University, National Cancer Research Network
- Study start
- Jan 2006
- Study completion
- Nov 2006 (estimated)
- First posted
- 23 Jan 2006 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Patient requiring first oncology appointment whose appointments are being planned more than 3 days in advance. (see exclusion criteria for reason)
- 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.) -
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- 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.
- Vulnerable patients under 18 years of age.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| patient information leaflet | Behavioural | – |
Primary outcome
Whether it is feasible to carry out a full scale randomised controlled trial to compare the effect of giving additional information versus no additional information to patients prior to their first oncology appointment.
5 secondary outcomes
Whether existing and/or acquired research awareness may influence participation.
Development of the research information leaflet.
Development, testing and validation of the data collection methods.
Number of questionnaires returned.
Realistic data for estimating sample sizes in the larger study.
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 6 Nov 2017.
- Background: PubMed 14998605Stevens 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.
- Background: PubMed 9893627Fallowfield 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.
- Background: PubMed 8664135Mohide 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.
- Background: PubMed 11481363Ellis 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.
- Background: PubMed 12196367Ellis 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.
- Background: PubMed 11139312Jenkins 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.
- BackgroundHarrison 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.
- BackgroundBlesing C, Palmer S, Mathews A. Thames Valley Cancer Research Network 3rd Annual Progress Report. 2004. http://www.tvcn.org.uk/research/annualreport.
- Background: PubMed 10673966Mossman 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.
- Background: PubMed 11223318Braunholtz 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.
Related trials for Cancer
Recruiting
MRD-Guided Postoperative Surveillance and Adaptive Treatment for Resectable Lung Cancer
Lung Neoplasms, Neoadjuvant Therapy
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Tamoxifen Citrate or Z-Endoxifen Hydrochloride in Treating Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic, Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer
Recurrent Breast Carcinoma, Stage III Breast Cancer AJCC v7
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
A Phase II Clinical Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of SXRN Injection in Patients With Cancer Cachexia
Cachexia-Anorexia Syndrome, Cachexia; Cancer
RecruitingPhase 2
Adebrelimab ±Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Unresectable Locally Advanced ESCC
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Immunotherapy
Not yet recruitingPhase 1/2
A Study of Sonrotoclax (BGB-11417) in Children With Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia and B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Relapsed Acute Myeloid Leukemia, Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Susan J Palmer principal investigator
Thames Valley Cancer Research Network
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing patient information leaflet in people with Cancer, run by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust at 1 site in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 6 Nov 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Whether it is feasible to carry out a full scale randomised controlled trial to compare the effect of giving additional information versus no additional information to patients prior to their first oncology appointment.. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00280722, which also lists 10 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 6 Nov 2017.