Urologists’ Attitudes Regarding Cancer Clinical Research

ObjectivesAlthough breast cancer studies consistently accrue patients very rapidly, prostate cancer studies generally do so much more slowly and take much longer to complete, resulting in a much slower pace of validated clinical innovation. A survey of practicing urologists was undertaken to ascertain their attitudes about prostate cancer research, learn how to increase interest, and lower barriers to their participation.MethodsA 57-question survey exploring attitudes toward research was mailed to a 50% random sample of American Urological Association members, followed by two reminder cards. Most questions used a 7-point Likert scale. Response scores ranged from “disagree strongly” to “agree strongly.”ResultsA total of 642 surveys were returned. Of the respondents, 83% had enrolled patients in trials—70% since residency. Almost universal agreement was found that clinical trials build scientific knowledge (99%) and are beneficial to future patients (99%). Respondents agreed that trials are beneficial to their patients (81%), keep physicians better informed regarding current practices (78%), and benefit them or their practice (66%). Also, 76% expressed interest in participating in research. Statistically significant differences were found between those who currently offered clinical trials and those who did not.ConclusionsThe challenge in prostate cancer research is to transform the global perception of “value of research findings” into one of “value in participation.” Response differences between those who did or did not currently participate in clinical research suggest strategies to build interest in clinical research, lower barriers to and the burden of participation, and increase participation.