{"id":{"repo_id":"brock","oai_identifier":"oai:brocku.scholaris.ca:10464/3400"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/brock/oai:brocku.scholaris.ca:10464/3400","repository":{"repo_id":"brock","name":"Brock University","base_url":"https://brocku.scholaris.ca/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"A Psychosocial Approach to Understanding Causality Assessment in Early Phase Oncology Clinical Trials: A Phenomenological Study","abstract":"Research Question: What are the psychosocial factors that affect causality assessment in early phase oncology clinical trials? Methods: Thirty-two qualitative interviews were explicated with the aid of “Naturalistic Decision Making”. Data explication consisted of phenomenological reduction, delineating and clustering meaning units, forming themes, and creating a composite summary. Participants were members of the National Cancer Institute of Canada’s Clinical Trial Group Investigative New Drug committee. Results: The process of assigning causality is extremely subjective and full of uncertainty. Physicians had no formal training, nor a tool to assist them with this process. Physicians were apprehensive about their decisions and felt pressure from their patients, as well as the pharmaceutical companies sponsoring the trial. Conclusions: There are many problem areas when attributing causality, all of which have serious consequences, but clinicians used a variety of methods to cope with these problem areas.","abstract_html":"Research Question: What are the psychosocial factors that affect causality assessment in early phase oncology clinical trials? Methods: Thirty-two qualitative interviews were explicated with the aid of “Naturalistic Decision Making”. Data explication consisted of phenomenological reduction, delineating and clustering meaning units, forming themes, and creating a composite summary. Participants were members of the National Cancer Institute of Canada’s Clinical Trial Group Investigative New Drug committee. Results: The process of assigning causality is extremely subjective and full of uncertainty. Physicians had no formal training, nor a tool to assist them with this process. Physicians were apprehensive about their decisions and felt pressure from their patients, as well as the pharmaceutical companies sponsoring the trial. Conclusions: There are many problem areas when attributing causality, all of which have serious consequences, but clinicians used a variety of methods to cope with these problem areas.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Torti, Jacqueline"],"institution":"Brock University","degree_name":"M.A. Applied Health Sciences","degree_level":"Masters","degree_discipline":"Faculty of Applied Health Sciences","degree_department":"Applied Health Sciences Program","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2011,"date_issued":"2011-09-09","date_published":"2011-09-09","updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:22:58Z","subjects":["Psychosocial","Oncology","Causality","Decision-Making","Phenomenology"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10464/3400","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Applied Health Sciences Program"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Torti, Jacqueline"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2011-09-09T17:00:37Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2011-09-09T17:00:37Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2011-09-09"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Electronic Thesis or Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Faculty of Applied Health Sciences"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["M.A. Applied Health Sciences"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Brock University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Psychosocial","Oncology","Causality","Decision-Making","Phenomenology"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10464/3400"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Research Question: What are the psychosocial factors that affect causality assessment in early phase oncology clinical trials? Methods: Thirty-two qualitative interviews were explicated with the aid of “Naturalistic Decision Making”. Data explication consisted of phenomenological reduction, delineating and clustering meaning units, forming themes, and creating a composite summary. Participants were members of the National Cancer Institute of Canada’s Clinical Trial Group Investigative New Drug committee. Results: The process of assigning causality is extremely subjective and full of uncertainty. Physicians had no formal training, nor a tool to assist them with this process. Physicians were apprehensive about their decisions and felt pressure from their patients, as well as the pharmaceutical companies sponsoring the trial. Conclusions: There are many problem areas when attributing causality, all of which have serious consequences, but clinicians used a variety of methods to cope with these problem areas."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A Psychosocial Approach to Understanding Causality Assessment in Early Phase Oncology Clinical Trials: A Phenomenological Study"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.department":["Applied Health Sciences Program"],"dc:creator":["Torti, Jacqueline"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2011-09-09T17:00:37Z"],"dc:date.available":["2011-09-09T17:00:37Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2011-09-09"],"dc:description.abstract":["Research Question: What are the psychosocial factors that affect causality assessment in early phase oncology clinical trials? Methods: Thirty-two qualitative interviews were explicated with the aid of “Naturalistic Decision Making”. Data explication consisted of phenomenological reduction, delineating and clustering meaning units, forming themes, and creating a composite summary. Participants were members of the National Cancer Institute of Canada’s Clinical Trial Group Investigative New Drug committee. Results: The process of assigning causality is extremely subjective and full of uncertainty. Physicians had no formal training, nor a tool to assist them with this process. Physicians were apprehensive about their decisions and felt pressure from their patients, as well as the pharmaceutical companies sponsoring the trial. Conclusions: There are many problem areas when attributing causality, all of which have serious consequences, but clinicians used a variety of methods to cope with these problem areas."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10464/3400"],"dc:language.iso":["eng"],"dc:subject":["Psychosocial","Oncology","Causality","Decision-Making","Phenomenology"],"dc:title":["A Psychosocial Approach to Understanding Causality Assessment in Early Phase Oncology Clinical Trials: A Phenomenological Study"],"dc:type":["Electronic Thesis or Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Faculty of Applied Health Sciences"],"thesis:degree_level":["Masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["M.A. Applied Health Sciences"],"thesis:institution_name":["Brock University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:22:58Z"}