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

by Clairice T. Veit

Download Free Electronic Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.4 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

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. Additive and constant-weight-averaging models 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 clinical trial planners.

Reprinted with permission from Medical Decision Making, Vol. 24, No. 4, Jul-Aug 2004, pp. 330-350. Copyright © 2004 Society for Medical Decision Making.

Originally published in: Medical Decision Making, Vol. 24, No. 4, Jul-Aug 2004, pp. 330-350.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.