ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2011
Urologists' attitudes regarding information sharing with prostate cancer patients--is there a common ground for collaboration with family physicians?
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Primary care physicians and oncologists are partners in cancer announcement.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinicians often fail to adequately meet prostate cancer patients' information needs, and patients may receive different kinds of information from their doctors. This study aims to describe urologists' attitudes regarding information sharing with prostate cancer patients and to compare these findings with the previously published attitudes of Israeli family physicians. A questionnaire (11 items) was mailed to 87 board-certified practicing urologists. Fifty-four physicians (66%) completed the questionnaires. Sixty-one percent of respondents stated that patients should be told the complete truth about their disease. Ninety-six percent of respondents felt competent at breaking bad news and stated they would discuss emotions with patients. The majority of physicians would provide general information when referring for a medical procedure, discussing treatment options or a patient's prognosis. Fifty-seven percent of respondents preferred that patients be autonomous in their decision making. Only 26% of respondents believed that family physicians should communicate medical information to patients at the preliminary diagnostic stages. There was no significant difference in the attitudes expressed by urologists and family physicians towards the amount of information they would share with prostate cancer patients and in their preferences regarding treatment decision making. Urologists in Israel recognize the importance of sharing information with prostate cancer patients. Although urologists share similar attitudes with family physicians, they do not recognize the role that family physicians play in caring for prostate cancer patients. Further studies are needed to design and implement effective ways to improve the communication and collaboration between urologists and family physicians for the benefit of prostate cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20972846What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.