ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2026
Was It Worth It? Response Data from >650 US and International Participants in Chemoprevention Trials.
Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Randomised phase III trials of cancer prevention drugs: a systematic review and prediction of trial success.ESMO open · 2026Review
- Measuring toxicity better: patient-reported outcome-informed calibration for CTCAE assessment.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim was to assess whether subject's participation in early-phase chemoprevention trials was satisfactory and identify features associated with subjects' satisfaction. Thirteen trials that investigated a range of candidate agents from 2006 to 2021 by the Cancer Prevention Network were included. The five-item "Was It Worth It?" (WIWI) questionnaire was administered to all subjects at the end of each trial's intervention or at early termination. Satisfied overall was defined as a participant response of "yes" to the first three questions. Six hundred ninety-one participants from the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, and Honduras enrolled on a trial. Six hundred fifty-two (94.4%) completed the WIWI questionnaire. Of these, 493 (75.6%) were White, non-Hispanic/Latino; 39 (6.0%) Black, non-Hispanic/Latino; 98 (15.0%) Hispanic/Latino; and 8 (1.2%) of another race/ethnicity. One hundred ninety-three were women (29.6%), 121 (17.5%) were ≥65 years, and 517 (79.3%) participated in a placebo-controlled trial. Eighty-five percent indicated being satisfied overall. Compared with White, non-Hispanic/Latino, the odds of not satisfied overall were 2.96 times higher for Black/Asian/>1 race, non-Hispanic/Latino (P < 0.001) and 0.40 times lower for Hispanic/Latino (P = 0.004). The odds of not satisfied overall was 1.9 times higher when the number of preintervention adverse events experienced was ≥1 (P = 0.012), 1.8 times higher when the percentage of the intervention duration with adverse events was >5% (P = 0.024), and 7.4 times higher for subjects who terminated the intervention early (P < 0.001). These findings can inform the design of future chemoprevention trials and help investigators improve accrual, retention, adherence, and diversity in this underexplored research setting. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: The five-item "WIWI?" questionnaire, which captures the participant-reported experience of trial participation, gives the subject a voice in the development of new chemopreventative agents. This study in 652 subjects looked at satisfaction with participation in early-phase chemoprevention trials for higher-risk, cancer-free men and women. See related Spotlight, p. 7.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.