Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 170

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patients' Decision-Making Process Regarding Participation in Phase I Oncology Research

Agrawal, Manish, Grady, Christine, Fairclough, Diane L., Meropol, Neal J., Maynard, Kim, Emanuel, Ezekiel J.·2006·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: This study assesses the decision-making process of patients enrolling in phase I oncology studies. Patients and Methods: Participants were eligible if they had consented to participate in a phase I cancer study at one of five cancer centers, understood English, and were older than 18 years. Trained interviewers conducted structured in-person interviews. Results: Of the 163 participants, 88% were white, 96% had health insurance, and 51% were college graduates or post graduates. Overall, 81% were aware of hospice, but only 6% had seriously considered hospice for themselves; 84% were aware of palliative care and 10% seriously considered it for themselves; and 7% considered getting no treatment at all. Overall, 75% reported moderate or a lot of pressure to participate in the phase I study because their cancer was growing, whereas 7% reported such pressure from the study investigators and 9% felt such pressure from their families. For 63% of patients, the most important information for decision making was that the phase I drug killed cancer cells; only 12% reported that the adverse effects of the drug(s) was the most useful information. More than 90% of patients said they would still participate in the study even if the experimental drug caused serious adverse effects, including a 10% chance of dying. Conclusion: Patients are aware of many alternatives to phase I studies, but do not seriously consider them. Very few experience pressure from family or researchers to participate in research. Their main goal is to fight their cancer, and almost no adverse effect, including death, would dissuade them from enrolling.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2006.06.0269

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 170

Metadata

Authors
Agrawal, M., Grady, C., Fairclough, D. L., Meropol, N. J., Maynard, K., & Emanuel, E. J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2006-09-20
Volume
24
Issue
27
Pages
4479-4484
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2128519825
Cited by
170
References
2
FWCI
7.46
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: Patients' Decision-Making Process Regarding Participation in Phase I Oncology Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2006.06.0269
The paper
Agrawal, M., Grady, C., Fairclough, D. L., Meropol, N. J., Maynard, K., & Emanuel, E. J. (2006). Patients' Decision-Making Process Regarding Participation in Phase I Oncology Research. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.06.0269

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.