IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v24y2004i4p330-350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Single Mathematical Model Predicts Physicians’ Recommendations and Postmenopausal Women’s Decisions to Participate in a Clinical Trial to Prevent Breast Cancer or Coronary Heart Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Clairice T. Veit

Abstract

Few eligible postmenopausal women participate in clinical trial research to prevent breast cancer or coronary heart disease, making it impossible to adequately assess the efficacy of tested interventions for this vulnerable group. To elucidate the causal factors and decision model underlying participation behavior, 180 white, African American, and Hispanic postmenopausal women judged their likelihood of participation in a breast cancer or coronary heart disease prevention clinical trial in scenarios with varied cost/remuneration, perceived risk, doctor’s recommendation, and expected toxicity. In addition, 293 white, African American, and Hispanic male and female physicians judged the strength of their participation recommendation in scenarios with varied cost/ remuneration, expected toxicity, patient’s age, and the source of the information about the clinical trial. An additive and constant-weight-averaging model were rejected. The same configural-weight-range model accounted for judgments in both breast cancer and coronary heart disease scenarios, with different parameter values for each group. According to this model, white and Hispanic women under 70 years of age are most likely to participate, even under somewhat adverse conditions; costs and high toxicity levels act as severe barriers to physicians’ positive recommendations and women’s participation. Perceived risk was the most important factor for women, yet only 8% and 15% reported ever having received risk information from their doctor for breast cancer and coronary heart disease, respectively. For these two diseases, respectively, 75% and 48% of women rated their risk of the disease as low and 76% and 88% reported they had never heard of a randomized clinical trial or of a prevention clinical trial being conducted. These results have implications for education, information dissemination, and prevention clinicaltrial planners .

Suggested Citation

  • Clairice T. Veit, 2004. "A Single Mathematical Model Predicts Physicians’ Recommendations and Postmenopausal Women’s Decisions to Participate in a Clinical Trial to Prevent Breast Cancer or Coronary Heart Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(4), pages 330-350, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:4:p:330-350
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04267007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04267007
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X04267007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gotay, Carolyn Cook, 1991. "Accrual to cancer clinical trials: Directions from the research literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 569-577, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Verheggen, Frank W. S. M. & van Wijmen, Frans C. B., 1996. "Informed consent in clinical trials," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 131-153, May.
    2. Heather J. Sutherland & Raquel da Cunha & Gina A. Lockwood & James E. Till, 1998. "What Attitudes and Beliefs Underlie Patients' Decisions about Participating in Chemotherapy Trials?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(1), pages 61-69, January.

    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:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:4:p:330-350. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.