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
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.
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
Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey
Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06805-2 · Cited by 655
Weinfurt, K. P., Sulmasy, D. P., Schulman, K. A., & Meropol, N. J. (2003) · Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics · doi:10.1023/a:1026072409595 · Cited by 74
Self-citation
Cited by
Fadul, N., Elsayem, A., Palmer, J. L., Del Fabbro, E., Swint, K., Li, Z., Poulter, V., & Bruera, E. (2009) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.24206 · Cited by 379
Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how
Sacristan, J. A., Aguaron, A., Avendaño, C., Garrido, P., Carrion, J., Gutierrez, A., Kroes, R., & Flores, A. (2016) · Patient Preference and Adherence · doi:10.2147/ppa.s104259 · Cited by 363
The Role of Chemotherapy at the End of Life: “When Is Enough, Enough?”
Harrington, S. E., & Smith, T. J. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.299.22.2667 · Cited by 280
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.