ArticlePloS one2015
Communication of Pulmonary Function Test Results: A Survey of Patient's Preferences.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What information do cancer patients want and how well are their needs being met?Ecancermedicalscience · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPhysician-patient communication in patients suffering from common chronic respiratory disease should encompass discussion about pulmonary function test (PFT) results, diagnosis, disease education, smoking cessation and optimising inhaler technique. Previous studies have identified that patients with chronic respiratory disease/s often express dissatisfaction about physician communication. Currently there is a paucity of data regarding patient awareness of their PFT results (among those who have undergone PFTs previously) or patient preferences about PFT result communication.
methodsWe undertook a three-month prospective study on outpatients referred to two Pulmonary Function Laboratories. If subjects had undergone PFTs previously, the awareness of their previous test results was evaluated. All subjects were asked about their preferences for PFT result communication. Subjects were determined to have chronic respiratory disease based on their past medical history.
results300 subjects (50% male) with a median age (± SD) of 65 (± 14) years participated in the study. 99% of the study participants stated that they were at least moderately interested in knowing their PFT results. 72% (217/300) of the subjects had undergone at least one PFT in the past, 48% of whom stated they had not been made aware of their results. Fewer subjects with chronic respiratory disease preferred that only a doctor discuss their PFT results with them (28% vs. 41%, p = 0.021).
conclusionOur study demonstrates that while almost all subjects want to be informed of their PFT results, this does not occur in a large number of patients. Many subjects are agreeable for their PFT results to be communicated to them by clinicians other than doctors. Further research is required to develop an efficient method of conveying PFT results that will improve patient satisfaction and health outcomes.
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.