Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23663240›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015

How oncologists communicate information to women with recurrent ovarian cancer in the context of treatment decision making in the medical encounter.

Lorraine M Elit, Cathy Charles, Amiram Gafni, Jennifer Ranford, Sara Tedford-Gold, Irving Gold

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lorraine M ElitDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Cathy CharlesDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Amiram GafniDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jennifer RanfordUniversity of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Sara Tedford-GoldCore Research and Consulting, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Irving GoldAssociation of Faculties of Medicine of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
McMaster University · CAUniversity of Waterloo · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen with recurrent ovarian cancer depend on their physicians to provide them with information about their diagnosis and available treatment options if they wish to participate in the process of choosing the treatment. There is no information on how oncologists give information to women during the physician-patient encounter at the time the disease recurs.

objectivesTo explore from the oncologists' perspective (i) the extent to which oncologists provide their own patients who are experiencing their first recurrence of ovarian cancer with the same information about management options, and (ii) any explicit or implicit criteria they use to decide whether and how to tailor the information to individual patients.

methodsWe adopted a qualitative, exploratory descriptive approach to begin to understand oncologists' perspectives on how they gave information to patients within the context of their clinical practice. Individual interviews were used to identify themes related to the study objectives.

resultsFifteen gynaecologic and five medical oncologists participated. Theme 1 describes the extent to which oncologists give information to their patients in the same way or in different ways. This section describes how the same oncologist may modify the depth of information transfer based on several factors. Theme 2 focuses on the factors that influence what information is given. For example, the amount and type of information given is based on the oncologist's on-going assessment of how the patient is assimilating the information shared during the medical encounter, the oncologists' perception of their relationship with the patient and the oncologist's assessment of what role they should take in decision making. Theme 3 involves the factors that influenced how information is given. For example, the information shared may vary based on the oncologist's perception of the patient's vitality, the patient's comprehension of the information, the patient's emotional well-being. In addition, the oncologist may make the information relevant for the patient by using analogies. Different types of information may be shared based on the oncologist's perception of patient- or family-initiated question. The information relay may be curtailed based on competing demands for the oncologist. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsOncologists provide women with information on their disease status, their treatment options and the side effects of treatment. The oncologists use perceptions to determine what information and how to provide information. The question this paper raises is whether the oncologist's perceptions reflect the individual patient's information and decision-making needs.

Indexed as

CommunicationMedical OncologyPatient Care TeamPhysician-Patient RelationsDecision MakingFemaleGynecologyHumansInterviews as TopicMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOvarian NeoplasmsQualitative Researchinformation givingoncologist perspectiveovarian cancerqualitative

Identifiers

PMID23663240
PMCPMC5060889
OpenAlexW2172205014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.