ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment2014
The cancer patient's use and appreciation of the internet and other modern means of communication.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- eHealth Literacy in German Skin Cancer Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Putting the Patient First: A Scoping Review of Patient Desires in Canada.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2021Article
- ["Dr. Google"-information-seeking behavior and disease-specific anxiety among men with localized prostate cancer].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2019Article
- Information needs, communication and usage of social media by cancer patients and their relatives.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2019Article
- How to evaluate sexual health in cancer patients: development of the EORTC sexual health questionnaire for cancer patients.Translational andrology and urology · 2015Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As computers and smartphones continue to transform the doctor-patient relationship, it is essential that healthcare professionals understand how their patients wish to interact with these devices. The results from a satisfaction questionnaire of 225 Oncology patients treated in 2011 in Quebec, Canada provide insight into the manner in which patients have been and wish to communicate with their healthcare teams. The survey also addressed whether or not patients searched the Internet for supplementary information regarding their condition. Generally, patients were neutral regarding adopting greater usage of modern means of communication. The majority of patients did not want to be contacted via e-mail or SMS, nor did the patients want to make appointments or fill out surveys online. Forty four percent of patients used the Internet to learn more about their condition. Concerning the patients who were not provided with links to medically relevant websites, 44% wished their doctors had supplied them with such links. Though there was much overlap between the 44% of patients who went on the Internet to learn more about their condition and the 44% of the patients who wished their physicians provided them with such links, 14% of all the patients wished their medical teams had provided them with links, but did not independently search for medically relevant information about their condition. Using chi-square testing education level was found to be the best predictor of which patients searched the web for supplementary information about their conditions (p = 0.003). Contrary to findings in other studies, a comparable proportion of patients in each age-group used the Internet to research their condition. Given the wealth of web-resources available to cancer patients, it would be beneficial for both healthcare teams and their patients if physicians consistently offered a list of trustworthy websites to their patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.