The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials: Why Are Patients Not Participating?
Abstract
Background. Participation in cancer clinical trials is low, particularly in racial and ethnic minorities in some cases, which has negative consequences for the generalizability for study findings. The objective of this study was to determine what factors are associated with patients’ participation or willingness to participate and whether these factors vary by race/ethnicity. Design or Methods. White, Hispanic, and black participants were obtained through the Florida cancer registry and who were diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer (N = 1100). Participants were surveyed via telephone to obtain demographic information, past participation, and willingness to participate in clinical trials, as well as barriers and facilitators to participation. Logistic and Poisson regressions were performed. Results. Respondents were on average 67.4 years old, 42.7% were male, and 50.1% were married. In this population, 7.7% of respondents had participated in a clinical trial, and 36.5% stated that they would be willing to participate. In multivariate models, blacks and Hispanics were equally likely as whites to be willing to participate in cancer trials, but Hispanics were less likely to have participated, and this was especially more likely in non–English-speaking Hispanics compared with English-speaking Hispanics. Notable barriers across race/ethnicity were mistrust and lack of knowledge of clinical trials. Limitations. Cross-sectional design limits cause-and-effect conclusions. Conclusions. There are racial differences in participation rates but not in willingness to participate. We hypothesize that willingness to participate is not very high because people are uninformed about participating, particularly in non–English-speaking Hispanics. Barriers and facilitators to participation vary by race. Improved understanding of cultural differences that can be addressed by physicians may restore faith, comprehension, and acceptability of clinical trials by all patients.
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.
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
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.67.6.1063 · Cited by 7,456
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Adults
Spielberger, C. D. (2012) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t06496-000 · Cited by 3,479
Cited by
Fogel, D. B. (2018) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.001 · Cited by 1,035
Animations about Clinical Trial Participation for Cancer Patients and Survivors
Occa, A., & Morgan, S. E. (2019) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2019.1668089 · Cited by 19
Langford, A., Studts, J. L., & Byrne, M. M. (2021) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2020.07.005 · Cited by 15
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Byrne, M. M., Tannenbaum, S. L., Glück, S., Hurley, J., & Antoni, M.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-07-29
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 116-126
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2112276490
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials: Why Are Patients Not Participating? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0272989x13497264
- The paper
- Byrne, M. M., Tannenbaum, S. L., Glück, S., Hurley, J., & Antoni, M. (2014). Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials: Why Are Patients Not Participating? Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x13497264
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.