CClinicalTrials.gg
WithdrawnNCT00280722Updated Nov 6, 2017

RAW Study Version 3.4

An interventional study of patient information leaflet in Cancer, sponsored by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust. Withdrawn at 1 site in United Kingdom. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-11-06.

Sponsored by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
0
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of carrying out a full scale randomised controlled trial to compare the effects of giving additional information versus no additional information to patients prior to their first oncology appointment.

Hypothesis: Patients with some awareness of research provided prior to clinic appointment in oncology and aware of the possibility of being invited to take part in a clinical trial are more likely to agree to participate.

Read the detailed description

The recruitment of cancer patients into clinical trials may be hindered by several factors such as limited understanding of medical research, a lack of information about the type of research on offer for patients, over load of information when given a new and life limiting diagnosis. Nor does the Churchill Hospital inform patients that research is an integral part of the every day life and business of the hospital.

Does increasing research awareness impact on accrual?

This initial study aims to establish the feasibility of a larger study to gather the evidence required to investigate whether patients need some information indicating that a hospital participates in research, and what it may mean to the individuals to participate, including new terminology; thus reducing fear and anxiety and ultimately increasing the accrual of cancer patients into cancer clinical trials. Prior knowledge of patients' attitudes to involvement in clinical trials might assist communication about trials and encourage more doctors to approach eligible patients. In the NHS there is always a fear of cost implications, however a study comparing two New Patient Information Packs (NPIPs) showed no differences were detected between a full pack and a mini pack and given the cost, the mini-New Patient Information Pack (mini-NPIP) was the preferred approach. This has influenced the decision to provide only a brief leaflet of information to patients prior to their first appointment.

The National Cancer Research Network (NCRN) was formed three years ago with the aim to provide the NHS infrastructure to support and improve patient care by speeding up access to the best treatment and care, provide information and support to our patients and improve the speed of research by increasing the number of patients into clinical trials. In the Thames Valley Cancer Research Network (TVCRN) accrual has increased from 2.7% in 2001-2 to 8.3% in 2003-4. The infrastructure to support research is in place, clinicians are informed and have relevant nursing and administrative support to offer trials to patients and cope with the increased numbers of patients taking part. There appears to be a deficit in the research knowledge and understanding of the general public. It is easier and less stressful to 'opt out' when faced with a new diagnosis and complicated treatment options than to consider, in addition, a clinical trial. By measuring accrual and evaluating the patients' response to information about research I intend to investigate the feasibility of a larger study to provide the evidence to investigate the need for pre-first-visit research information. Thus investigating the requirement, importance and need for information for the patients before their first oncology appointment and the general public.

Ellis, Buttow and Tattersall have published two studies conducted with breast cancer patients: the first in 2001 found that that women who have a better knowledge of clinical trials are more willing to consider participating in a clinical trial, however in 2002 patients who had received a booklet of information about research for patients were significantly less likely to consider participating in a randomised clinical trial (RCT). Using a very large sample (n=2331) Jenkins, Fallowfield and Saul showed that the vast majority of cancer patients questioned wanted a great deal of specific information concerning their illness and treatment.

02

Conditions studied

  • Cancer

Keywords

  • Randomised
  • Intervention
  • Leaflet
  • Information
  • Awareness
  • Behaviour
  • Research
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust is the lead sponsor of 92 studies on the registry; 7 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  1. Patient requiring first oncology appointment whose appointments are being planned more than 3 days in advance. (see exclusion criteria for reason)
  2. 18 years or over. (The project will take place in adult clinic - all children \& young people under 18 are seen and cared for in the paediatric unit.) -

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. New patient referrals whose appointments are being planned in less than 3 days are often telephoned with details and will not have sufficient time to receive the information by post and read it prior to their appointment.
  2. Vulnerable patients under 18 years of age.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
0 participants (actual)

Interventions

  • Behavioralpatient information leaflet
06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Whether it is feasible to carry out a full scale randomised controlled trial to compare the effect of giving additional information versus no additional information to patients prior to their first oncology appointment.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Whether existing and/or acquired research awareness may influence participation.

  2. Development of the research information leaflet.

  3. Development, testing and validation of the data collection methods.

  4. Number of questionnaires returned.

  5. Realistic data for estimating sample sizes in the larger study.

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Churchill Hospital
    Oxford, OX3 7LJ, United Kingdom
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Stevens T, Ahmedzai SH. Why do breast cancer patients decline entry into randomised trials and how do they feel about their decision later: a prospective, longitudinal, in-depth interview study. Patient Educ Couns. 2004 Mar;52(3):341-8. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00041-7. PubMed 14998605 ↗
  • Fallowfield LJ, Jenkins V, Brennan C, Sawtell M, Moynihan C, Souhami RL. Attitudes of patients to randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy. Eur J Cancer. 1998 Sep;34(10):1554-9. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(98)00193-2. PubMed 9893627 ↗
  • Mohide EA, Whelan TJ, Rath D, Gafni A, Willan AR, Czukar D, Campbell IB, Okawara GS, Neimanis M, Levine MN. A randomised trial of two information packages distributed to new cancer patients before their initial appointment at a regional cancer centre. Br J Cancer. 1996 Jun;73(12):1588-93. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1996.299. PubMed 8664135 ↗
  • Ellis PM, Butow PN, Tattersall MH, Dunn SM, Houssami N. Randomized clinical trials in oncology: understanding and attitudes predict willingness to participate. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Aug 1;19(15):3554-61. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.15.3554. PubMed 11481363 ↗
  • Ellis PM, Butow PN, Tattersall MH. Informing breast cancer patients about clinical trials: a randomized clinical trial of an educational booklet. Ann Oncol. 2002 Sep;13(9):1414-23. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdf255. PubMed 12196367 ↗
  • Jenkins V, Fallowfield L, Saul J. Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres. Br J Cancer. 2001 Jan 5;84(1):48-51. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1573. PubMed 11139312 ↗
  • Harrison J. Why it is preferable to learn before the moment of diagnosis. In: Marie Curie Cancer Care in association with the Consumers' Advisory Group for Clinical Trials (CAG-CT) Conference: Towards Public Understanding of Clinical Trials, 16 Feb 1998, London.
  • Blesing C, Palmer S, Mathews A. Thames Valley Cancer Research Network 3rd Annual Progress Report. 2004. http://www.tvcn.org.uk/research/annualreport.
  • Mossman J, Boudioni M, Slevin ML. Cancer information: a cost-effective intervention. Eur J Cancer. 1999 Oct;35(11):1587-91. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00195-1. PubMed 10673966 ↗
  • Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, Lilford RJ. Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a "trial effect". J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Mar;54(3):217-24. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00305-x. PubMed 11223318 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Nov 6, 2017, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT00280722
Lead sponsor
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust
Collaborators
Liverpool John Moores University, National Cancer Research Network
First posted
Jan 23, 2006
Start date
Jan 2006
Completion
Nov 2006 (estimated)
Last update
Nov 6, 2017

Study contacts

Susan J Palmer
principal investigator · Thames Valley Cancer Research Network
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is withdrawn, as verified in Jan 2006. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion