Cited by 30Ethics in Clinical ResearchPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Patient understanding of research: developing and testing of a new questionnaire

Open access
HUTCHISON, C., COWAN, C., PAUL, J.·2007·European Journal of Cancer Care

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2006.00732.x

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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.”

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

  1. Barrett R., 2002, Oncology Nursing Forum, 29, 1091, 10.1188/02.ONF.1091-1098 · DOI
  2. 10.1188/05.ONF.751-755 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00204-1 · DOI
  4. Carstairs V., 1991, Deprivation and Health in Scotland
  5. 10.1200/JCO.2003.02.105 · DOI
  6. 10.1007/BF02289113 · DOI
  7. Donner A., 1987, Statistics in Medicine, 6, 441, 10.1002/sim.4780060404 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90020-2 · DOI
  9. Ellis P.M., 2001, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19, 3554, 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.15.3554 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00197-6 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00191-X · DOI
  12. Holm S., 1979, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65
  13. 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1142 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06805-2 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1093/jnci/93.2.139 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00048-9 · DOI
  17. McLoone P., 2004, Carstairs Scores for Scottish Postcode Sectors from the 2001 Census, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit
  18. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2003.03041.x · DOI
  19. Sutherland H.J., 1990, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 83, 439, 10.1177/014107689008300710 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
HUTCHISON, C., COWAN, C., & PAUL, J.
Affiliations
  • NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GB)
  • Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre (GB)
Venue
European Journal of Cancer Care
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
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