scholarly journals A STUDY ON YOUNGER POPULATION WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN CLINICAL TRIALS: REASONS INFLUENCING AND IMPEDING PARTICIPATION

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (18) ◽  
pp. 09-16
Author(s):  
Yuhanif Yusof ◽  
Syed Zulkifli Syed Syed Zakaria ◽  
Mohd Zakhiri Md Nor ◽  
Rohizan Halim ◽  
Al Hanisham Mohd Khalid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Young People ◽  
Medical Problem ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Willingness To Participate ◽  
Library Research ◽  
Future Potential ◽  
Conceptual Paper

A clinical trial is an 'investigation' into the development of a vaccine or treatment for a variety of diseases, including HIV/AIDS, H1N1, leukemia, and cancer, as well as the recently discovered Covid-19. In brief, clinical trials are the only way to determine the solution to any medical problem or question, as well as the quality of human health care. Clinical trials, on the other hand, cannot be undertaken without involvement, particularly from young people or participants, due to the future potential for illness preventive and treatment studies. However, the study's findings indicate that recruiting individuals from this group is not straightforward. According to one study, persons aged 18 to 24 were the least prepared to engage in clinical trials. A subsequent study discovered that persons aged 15 to 39 years had the lowest rate of involvement in cancer clinical trials of any age group worldwide. Thus, the objective of this article is to examine the willingness of young people, particularly students, to participate in clinical trials by examining the factors that impact and obstruct their participation as trial subjects. This conceptual paper is a qualitative investigation conducted using library research methods.

Beyond the Development of Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQOL) Measures: A Checklist for Evaluating HRQOL Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials—Does HRQOL Evaluation in Prostate Cancer Research Inform Clinical Decision Making?

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (18) ◽  
pp. 3502-3511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Efficace ◽  
Andrew Bottomley ◽  
David Osoba ◽  
Carolyn Gotay ◽  
Henning Flechtner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the inclusion of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), as a part of the trial design in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) setting, has supported clinical decision making for the planning of future medical treatments in prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: A minimum standard checklist for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in cancer clinical trials was devised to assess the quality of the HRQOL reporting and to classify the studies on the grounds of their robustness. It comprises 11 key HRQOL issues grouped into four broader sections: conceptual, measurement, methodology, and interpretation. Relevant studies were identified in a number of databases, including MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Both their HRQOL and traditional clinical reported outcomes were systematically analyzed to evaluate their consistency and their relevance for supporting clinical decision making. Results: Although 54% of the identified studies did not show any differences in traditional clinical end points between treatment arms and 17% showed a difference in overall survival, 74% of the studies showed some difference in terms of HRQOL outcomes. One third of the RCTs provided a comprehensive picture of the whole treatment including HRQOL outcomes to support their conclusions. Conclusion: A minimum set of criteria for assessing the reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials is necessary to make informed decisions in clinical practice. Using a checklist developed for this study, it was found that HRQOL is a valuable source of information in RCTs of treatment in metastatic prostate cancer.

scholarly journals Quality Evaluation of the Clinical Trials for Natural Products Used in Cancer: An Evidence-Based Literature Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (22) ◽  
pp. 7961
Author(s):  
Rizwan Ahmad ◽  
Lina Hussain AlLehaibi ◽  
Abdulrahman K. Alshammari ◽  
Saif M. Alkhaldi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Natural Products ◽  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Correlation Pattern ◽  
Herbal Products ◽  
Total Variability

The amount of data regarding the use of herbs/herbal products in cancer clinical trials at times creates a great challenge for oncologists to prescribe or counsel patients. It urges critical evaluation of the quality of clinical trials. Herein, for the first time, the clinical trials for herbs used in cancer were critically evaluated on the basis of three widely used scales, i.e., Jadad, Delphi, and Cochrane scales. The literature was collected with the help of online databases, journals, libraries, and books using a number of specific keywords as mentioned in detail in forthcoming sections. A total of 73 clinical trials were extracted, evaluated, and scored for 14 herbs, according to the predefined criteria mentioned below. A major deficiency of “non-blinding of clinical trials” was observed. The principal component analysis revealed four components (PC1–PC4) with a total variability of 68.21%, wherein the highest percentage variability was observed for PC1 loaded with “non-blinding of the clinical trials, no concealment of the treatment allocation, non-blindness of the patient and care provider”, which accounted for 30.81% of the total variability. The next major variability of 14.70% was observed for PC2 loaded with “non-randomization of the studies, non-blinding of the outcome assessors, no proper drop-out procedures, and lack of information regarding baseline characteristics for the groups”. Pearson’s correlation further confirmed a similar correlation pattern for the mentioned deficiencies (p = 0.05). An in-house grading scale was developed, showing a very small portion (16.44%), i.e., 12/73 studies with a good quality, whereas the majority (57.54%) of the studies, i.e., 42/73, were found to be of poor quality. The rules and regulations governing the quality of clinical trials needs to be more stringent and updated for the natural products/herbs used in cancer clinical trials.

Reporting quality of abstracts in cancer clinical trials.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6584-6584
Author(s):  
Shanthi Sivendran ◽  
Kristina Braine Newport ◽  
Adam Albert ◽  
Matt D. Galsky
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials

Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials in India: A cross-sectional survey.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17652-e17652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikram Gota ◽  
Manjunath Nookala ◽  
Akanksha Yadav ◽  
Sadhna Kannan ◽  
Raghib Ali
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional

Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey

The Lancet ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 358 (9295) ◽  
pp. 1772-1777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Joffe ◽  
E Francis Cook ◽  
Paul D Cleary ◽  
Jeffrey W Clark ◽  
Jane C Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document