Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22390854›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2012

Testing the utility of a cancer clinical trial specific Question Prompt List (QPL-CT) during oncology consultations.

Richard F Brown, Carma L Bylund, Yuelin Li, Shawna Edgerson, Phyllis Butow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Effects of a Question Prompt Sheet on the Oncologist-Patient Relationship: a Multi-centred Randomised Controlled Trial in Breast Cancer.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Adapting an Australian question prompt list in oncology to a Norwegian setting-a combined method approach.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment in Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients With Cancer.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center · 2016
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Richard F BrownDepartment of Social and Behavioral Health, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond VA 23298-0149, USA. rbrown39@vcu.edu
Carma L Bylund
Yuelin Li
Shawna Edgerson
Phyllis Butow

Funding

Enhancing informed consent in cancer clinical trials;development and evaluation oR03CA130598 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI BYLUND, CARMA L. · 2007 to 2008
$188k
NCI NIH HHS CA130598RO3NCI NIH HHS R03 CA130598
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA Question Prompt List (QPL) is a proven, simple intervention to aid patients to be active participants in consultations with their physicians by asking questions. We aimed to further develop and test the efficacy of a targeted QPL for clinical trials (QPL-CT).

methodsBreast, Lung and Genitourinary cancer patients who were facing a discussion about a therapeutic clinical trial completed short pre- and post-consultation questionnaires and used the QPL-CT in their discussions with their oncologists.

results30 participants were recruited from 6 oncologists. All QPL-CT questions were selected by at least one-third of participants. Participants mostly wanted and asked questions about personal trial benefit. Oncologists provided information about personal benefit to varying degrees, thus patients did not ask some questions. Patients were still left with some unasked and unanswered questions.

conclusionThe QPL-CT has potential as a simple, inexpensive intervention to aid such communication. Further investigation is needed to demonstrate the efficacy of the QPL-CT in improving cancer patient outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These preliminary finding suggest that important areas of clinical trials are overlooked in clinical consultations. The QPL-CT may be an effective method to encourage oncologists to endorse patient question asking about clinical trials and prompt patient questions.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsReferral and ConsultationSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overClinical Trials as TopicCommunicationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNew York CityPatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID22390854
PMCPMC3376695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.