首页> 外文期刊>Supportive care in cancer: official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer >A survey of the views of palliative care healthcare professionals towards referring cancer patients to participate in randomized controlled trials in palliative care.
【24h】

A survey of the views of palliative care healthcare professionals towards referring cancer patients to participate in randomized controlled trials in palliative care.

机译:姑息治疗保健专业人员对将癌症患者转介参加姑息治疗随机对照试验的观点的调查。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

GOALS OF WORK: Clinical trials in palliative care (PC), especially randomised controlled trials (RCTs), are notoriously difficult to complete. One perceived challenge is gatekeeping, the reluctance of some healthcare professionals (HCPs) to refer patients for research studies. This study aimed to identify the extent of gatekeeping from palliative RCTs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to 597 HCPs with an interest in PC in Australia and New Zealand to assess their willingness to refer patients for RCTs. Respondents considered key issues that might affect their decision, documented willingness to refer to RCTs of increasing complexity in a hypothetical pain situation and documented the degree of patient inconvenience considered acceptable. Demographic data were collected. MAIN RESULTS: One hundred ninety-eight questionnaires were returned (33%), 122 from doctors and 76 from other HCPs. Very few were willing to refer to complicated studies involving many extra tests and/or hospital visits. Non-medical HCPs were less interested than doctors in studies that involved randomisation, placebo controls or double-blind methodology. The majority would refer patients for non-pharmacological studies, but were less willing to refer for pharmacological studies with possible side effects. Non-medical HCPs were less willing than doctors to refer to trials that involved patient inconvenience. Two factors predicted for greater willingness to refer: previous research experience and male gender. CONCLUSION: The survey revealed an unwillingness on the part of many HCPs to refer patients for RCTs in PC. It identifies trial-related factors that may encourage or discourage referral. Gatekeeping has the potential block recruitment and introduce a selection bias.
机译:工作目标:众所周知,姑息治疗(PC)的临床试验,尤其是随机对照试验(RCT)很难完成。一个可感知的挑战是看门,这是一些医疗保健专业人员(HCP)不愿转介患者进行研究的原因。本研究旨在确定姑息性RCT的关门程度。材料和方法:向澳大利亚和新西兰的597名对PC有兴趣的HCP发送了匿名问卷,以评估他们向RCT推荐患者的意愿。受访者考虑了可能影响其决策的关键问题,记录了在假设性疼痛情况下愿意参考越来越复杂的RCT的情况,并记录了认为不可接受的患者不便程度。收集了人口统计数据。主要结果:回收了198份问卷(33%),其中122份来自医生,76份来自其他HCP。很少有人愿意提及涉及许多额外测试和/或医院就诊的复杂研究。在涉及随机,安慰剂对照或双盲方法的研究中,非医学HCP的兴趣不及医生。大多数将转诊患者进行非药理学研究,但不太愿意转诊具有潜在副作用的药理学研究。非医疗HCP较医生不愿意提及涉及患者不便的试验。预测有更大的意愿提供参考的两个因素是:以前的研究经验和男性。结论:该调查显示,许多HCP不愿意将PC的RCT推荐给患者。它确定了可能会鼓励或阻止转诊的与试验相关的因素。看门者有可能招募新成员并引入选择偏见。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号