ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2013
Patient and staff assessment of an audiovisual education tool for head and neck radiation therapy.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of Natural Language Processing in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Technical note: A collision prediction tool using Blender.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Enhanced recovery after surgery, current, and future considerations in head and neck cancer.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2023Review
- Breast Cancer Patients' Perceptions of a Virtual Learning Environment for Pretreatment Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Article
- Teaching Cancer Patients the Value of Correct Positioning During Radiotherapy Using Visual Aids and Practical Exercises.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Article
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
The purpose of this study was to understand and compare patient and staff perceptions of a video-based preparatory education tool for head and neck radiotherapy. Patients and staff completed a questionnaire assessing their perceptions of whether the education tool was relevant, clear, complete and reassuring. Staff rated the video's accuracy and anticipated impact on future patient information needs. Demographic information was collected. Open-ended questions were used to elicit additional feedback. Quantitative responses from 50 patients and 48 staff were very positive and not significantly different between the two groups. Content analysis of the qualitative data provided insight into the information and approaches valued by patients and staff and how these differed. Staff members were more critical of the production quality and completeness of information related to procedures and treatment side effects. Patients valued seeing procedures acted out and desired more information about what these experiences would feel like and how to engage in self-care. Although staff-driven development may be an effective method of designing the content and approach of a preparatory education video, care should be taken to consider differences between patient and staff perceptions of information needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23784367What 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.