ArticleThe patient2014
Outcome of supportive talks in a hospital setting: insights from cancer patients and their relatives.
Article in The patient, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lived experiences and quality of life after gynaecological cancer-An integrative review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2019Review
- Meeting the Challenges of Intervention Research in Health Science: An Argument for a Multimethod Research Approach.The patient · 2016Article
- Involvement of patients with lung and gynecological cancer and their relatives in psychosocial cancer rehabilitation: a narrative review.The patient · 2015Review
- Adolescents' participation in their healthcare: A sociomaterial investigation of a diabetes app.Digital healthArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn psychosocial cancer rehabilitation, relatives are often central to patients' experiences and management of their cancer disease, and they need to be actively involved in rehabilitation. To address this need we developed a psychosocial rehabilitation intervention. As part of the intervention, lung or gynecological cancer patients and a relative as a pair were offered three supportive talks initiated on the date of admission and completed within 2 months.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to qualitatively assess the outcome of supportive talks from the pairs' perspectives and to provide a nuanced understanding of psychosocial support offered to pairs in a hospital setting in Denmark.
methodsUsing a qualitative approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with pairs receiving supportive talks and pairs receiving usual care. The interviews focused on the pairs' experiences of psychosocial supportive talks in a hospital setting. A constant comparative analysis was applied to identify themes related to the ways the pairs experienced the talks.
resultsThe analysis revealed two main themes: 'appreciation of the supportive talks' and 'the influence of the hospital setting'. The majority of pairs valued the focus on relationship and interpersonal communication, although they appreciated various aspects of the talks. The hospital setting provided valuable resources (trained nurses and medical expertise), but existing clinical routines challenged the implementation of the supportive talks.
conclusionsThe supportive talks were appreciated as psychosocial support in line with the objective, or as information on cancer treatment and routine care. The implementation of a new rehabilitation practice was challenged by the influence of the hospital setting.
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.