The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Patient understanding of research: developing and testing of a new questionnaire
Open accessAbstract
Lack of understanding or knowledge of research among patients participating in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is common. However, there is a lack of validated measures to assess the extent of the problem. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot a questionnaire to assess knowledge and understanding of RCTs in the cancer setting. A 13-item four-part questionnaire was developed and piloted with three groups: patients with cancer who had no experience of clinical trials (n=26); patients with cancer who had previously participated in an RCT (n=26) and research nurses (n=26). The groups were compared using non-parametric anova techniques which showed a highly statistically significant difference between the nurses and both patient groups (P<0.001). The difference between the patient groups was not significant (P=0.231). Cronbach's alpha was computed at 0.77. After studying correlation of individual questions and verbatim comments from respondents, one question was removed from the questionnaire, but this did not have a major effect on the properties of the tool. Minor changes were made to six other questions and the revised tool will now be used and further tested in a large randomized controlled trial to improve informed consent in trial participation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The topic guide was developed via discussion with the study team and in light of findings from the FiCTION pilot study and another study on medical patients' understanding of participation in an oncology trial.
“The topic guide was developed via discussion with the study team and in light of findings from the FiCTION pilot study [23], as well as another study [24] which had examined medical patients’ understanding and knowledge with respect to participation in an oncology trial.”
From Parental attitudes to randomised controlled trials in primary dental care: A qualitative study (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- Barrett R., 2002, Oncology Nursing Forum, 29, 1091, 10.1188/02.ONF.1091-1098 · DOI
- 10.1188/05.ONF.751-755 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00204-1 · DOI
- Carstairs V., 1991, Deprivation and Health in Scotland
- 10.1200/JCO.2003.02.105 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF02289113 · DOI
- Donner A., 1987, Statistics in Medicine, 6, 441, 10.1002/sim.4780060404 · DOI
- 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90020-2 · DOI
- Ellis P.M., 2001, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19, 3554, 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.15.3554 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00197-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00191-X · DOI
- Holm S., 1979, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65
- 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1142 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06805-2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/jnci/93.2.139 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00048-9 · DOI
- McLoone P., 2004, Carstairs Scores for Scottish Postcode Sectors from the 2001 Census, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit
- 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2003.03041.x · DOI
- Sutherland H.J., 1990, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 83, 439, 10.1177/014107689008300710 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Parental attitudes to randomised controlled trials in primary dental care: A qualitative study
Coventry, H., Maguire, A., McColl, E., & Haighton, C. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0330055
Metadata
- Authors
- HUTCHISON, C., COWAN, C., & PAUL, J.
- Affiliations
- NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GB)
- Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre (GB)
- ORCID
- PAUL, J.
- Venue
- European Journal of Cancer Care
- Publisher
- Hindawi Limited
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 187-196
- ISSN
- 0961-5423 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2354
- OpenAlex
- W2146286046
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- European Journal of Cancer Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Stirling
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Keywords
- randomized controlled trials, cancer patients, questionnaire development, research nurses, informed consent, clinical trial participation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Informed Consent, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Comprehension
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review