Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24287503›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2014

Information needs of early-stage prostate cancer patients: within- and between-group agreement of patients and health professionals.

Peter Rüesch, René Schaffert, Susanne Fischer, Deb Feldman-Stewart, Robin Ruszat, Peter Spörri, Markus Zurkirchen, Hans-Peter Schmid

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter RüeschResearch Unit for Health Services Research, School of Health Professions, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, CH-8401, Winterthur, Switzerland, rech@zhaw.ch.
René Schaffert
Susanne Fischer
Deb Feldman-Stewart
Robin Ruszat
Peter Spörri
Markus Zurkirchen
Hans-Peter Schmid
ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences · CHQueen's University · CASolothurner Spitäler · CHSt. Claraspital · CHUniversity of St. Gallen · CHUniversity of Zurich · CHZug Cantonal Hospital · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aims of this study were to analyze agreement on information needs within a group of early-state prostate cancer patients and to compare information preferences of patients with the view of health-care professionals about patients' needs.

methodsSample consists of patients (n = 128) and six subgroups of health-care professionals (urologists, n = 32; nurses, n = 95; radiotherapy technologists (RTTs), n = 36; medical oncologists, n = 19; radiation oncologists, n = 12; general practitioners (GPs), n = 10). Information needs have been assessed with 92 questions concerning prostate cancer and its treatment. Respondents judged the importance of addressing each question. Within- and between-group agreements of patients and health-care professional groups were estimated with raw agreement indices as well as chance-corrected Kappa and Gwet's AC1 measures. Finally, group-specific core items rated with high importance as well as high agreement were defined.

resultsPatients rated on average (median) half, i.e., 51 out 92 items as essential (interquartile range (IQR) = 36-66), 26 items as desired (IQR = 14-38), and 10 items as avoidable (IQR = 2-22). Within-group agreement on the presented information topics is modest for any participating group (AC1(patients)= 0.319; AC1(professionals) = 0.295-0.398). Agreement between patients and professionals is low too (AC1 = 0.282-0.329). Defining group-specific core sets of information topics results in 51 items being part of at least one core set. Concordance of the item core sets of patients and professionals is moderate with κ = 0.38-0.66, sensitivity of professionals' core sets for patients' preferences varies between 56 and 74%.

conclusionsResults emphasize the need for dialogue between doctor/professional and patient in identifying the information needed by individual patients and support the importance of shared decision making.

Indexed as

Decision MakingProfessional-Patient RelationsProstatic NeoplasmsAgedHumansMaleNeoplasm StagingPatient PreferenceSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID24287503
PMCPMC3938857
OpenAlexW2009463186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.