IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v55y2002i11p1947-1955.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Qualitative differences among cancer clinical trial explanations

Author

Listed:
  • Roberts, Felicia

Abstract

This paper examines how medical oncologists present to breast cancer patients the option of participating in experimental treatment trials. The investigation takes a case study approach, comparing two contrasting presentations of the clinical trial option. One presentation constructs the experimental trial as a locally organized, joint physician-patient effort to determine "best" treatments, and minimizes uncertainty by oversimplification of the randomization process; the second presentation situates the clinical trial within the larger national research effort, underscores the uncertainty created by randomization, and casts non-enrollment as a reasonable option. These observations provide initial evidence that physician presentation of the clinical trial varies substantially and provides the first detailed look at actual discourse practices used in the United States to recruit patients to experimental protocols.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberts, Felicia, 2002. "Qualitative differences among cancer clinical trial explanations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(11), pages 1947-1955, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:55:y:2002:i:11:p:1947-1955
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(01)00323-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:55:y:2002:i:11:p:1947-1955. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.