Volume 25, Issue 3 pp. 516-523
Original Article

Differences in trial knowledge and motives for participation among cancer patients in phase 3 clinical trials

T.M. Godskesen RN

Corresponding Author

T.M. Godskesen RN

PhD Student

Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Correspondence address: Tove Godskesen, Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics (CRB), Uppsala University, Box 564, SE-751 22 Uppsala, Sweden (e-mail: [email protected])Search for more papers by this author
U. Kihlbom PhD

U. Kihlbom PhD

Senior Lecturer

Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author
K. Nordin

K. Nordin

Professor

Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Search for more papers by this author
M. Silén RN, PhD

M. Silén RN, PhD

Senior Lecturer

Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author
P. Nygren MD

P. Nygren MD

Professor

Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 21 April 2015
Citations: 7

Abstract

While participants in clinical oncology trials are essential for the advancement of cancer therapies, factors decisive for patient participation have been described but need further investigation, particularly in the case of phase 3 studies. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in trial knowledge and motives for participation in phase 3 clinical cancer trials in relation to gender, age, education levels and former trial experience. The results of a questionnaire returned from 88 of 96 patients (92%) were analysed using the Mann–Whitney U-test. There were small, barely relevant differences in trial knowledge among patients when stratified by gender, age or education. Participants with former trial experience were less aware about the right to withdraw. Male participants and those aged ≥65 years were significantly more motivated by a feeling of duty, or by the opinions of close ones. Men seem more motivated than women by external factors. With the awareness that elderly and single male participants might be a vulnerable group and participants with former trial experience are less likely to be sufficiently informed, the information consent process should focus more on these patients. We conclude that the informed consent process seems to work well, with good results within most subgroups.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.