Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 753

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public.

Open access
Slevin, M L, Stubbs, L, Plant, H J, Wilson, P, Gregory, W M, Armes, P J, Downer, S M·1990·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--To compare responses of patients with cancer with those of a matched control group, cancer specialists, general practitioners, and cancer nurses in assessing personal cost-benefit of chemotherapy. DESIGN--Prospective study of consecutively recruited patients with cancer and other groups by questionnaire; half of the patients received the questionnaire again three months after starting treatment. SETTING--A medical oncology ward of a London teaching hospital. SUBJECTS--106 Patients with newly diagnosed solid tumours referred to the unit for consideration of treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy, 100 of whom were able to complete the questionnaire. 100 Matched controls, 315 cancer doctors (238 radiotherapists and 77 medical oncologists), 1500 randomly chosen general practitioners, and 1000 randomly chosen cancer nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Percentage chance of cure, prolonging life, or palliation of symptoms required to make treatment worth while with two hypothetical chemotherapy treatments, with severe and mild side effects respectively. RESULTS--Respondents to the questionnaire comprised 100 patients, 100 controls, 60 (78%) medical oncologists, 88 (37%) radiotherapists, 790 (53%) general practitioners, and 303 (30%) cancer nurses. Most patients were willing to accept intensive chemotherapy for a very small chance of benefit. The median benefit required to make the hypothetical intensive treatments worth while for patients compared with controls were: for chance of a cure (range 1 to 100%) 1% v 50%, for prolonging life (range three months to five years) 12 months v 24-60 months, and for relief of symptoms (range 1 to 100%) 10% v 75% respectively. There were no significant differences in the responses of the 50 patients completing the questionnaire on a second occasion. Doctors and nurses were less likely to accept radical treatment for minimal benefit compared with the patients (median scores 10-50%, 12-24 months, and 50-75%, for chance of cure, prolonging life, and relief of symptoms respectively). Significantly more patients than controls accepted treatments giving the minimal benefit for each category (cure 53.1 v 19.0%, 67.0 v 35.0%; prolonging life 42.1 v 10.0%, 53.0 v 25.0%; relief of symptoms 42.6 v 10.0%, 58.7 v 19.0% for intensive and mild treatments respectively, p less than 0.001) as was the case for comparison of patients with other groups. CONCLUSION--Patients with cancer are much more likely to opt for radical treatment with minimal chance of benefit than people who do not have cancer, including medical and nursing professionals. This could be taken into account when discussing treatment options with patients and their relatives.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.300.6737.1458

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

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

Cited by

See all 753

Metadata

Authors
Slevin, M. L., Stubbs, L., Plant, H. J., Wilson, P., Gregory, W. M., Armes, P. J., & Downer, S. M.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1990-06-02
Volume
300
Issue
6737
Pages
1458-1460
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1985609148
Cited by
753
References
0
FWCI
32.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.300.6737.1458
The paper
Slevin, M. L., Stubbs, L., Plant, H. J., Wilson, P., Gregory, W. M., Armes, P. J., & Downer, S. M. (1990). Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.300.6737.1458

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.