ArticleCancer epidemiology2016
Post-sampling mortality and non-response patterns in the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey: Implications for epidemiological studies based on surveys of cancer patients.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recruitment strategies and consent rates in a national prospective colorectal cancer screening cohort: results from year 1 of the Voyage Study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2024Trial
- Article
- Gender differences in cancer care experiences in Switzerland: a multicentre cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Mapping methods and tools for measuring patient experience in oncology settings: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Inequalities in patients' experiences with cancer care: the role of economic and health literacy determinants.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Are people with mesothelioma who respond to the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey representative of the national mesothelioma population? A data comparison with cancer registry patients from the National Lung Cancer Audit.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2022Article
- Patients' experiences with cancer care in Switzerland: Results of a multicentre cross-sectional survey.European journal of cancer care · 2022Article
- Factors influencing cancer patients' experiences of care in the USA, United Kingdom, and Canada: A systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Review
- Patient and GP experiences of pathways to diagnosis of a second primary cancer: a qualitative study.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Impact of health-related stigma on psychosocial functioning in cancer patients: Construct validity of the stigma-related social problems scale.European journal of cancer care · 2020Article
- How do patients with malignant brain tumors experience general practice care and support? Qualitative analysis of English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) data.Neuro-oncology practice · 2020Article
- Presenting symptoms of cancer and stage at diagnosis: evidence from a cross-sectional, population-based study.The Lancet. Oncology · 2020Article
- Article
- Experiences and supportive care needs of UK patients with pancreatic cancer: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Reliability of hospital scores for the Cancer Patient Experience Survey: analysis of publicly reported patient survey data.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Predictors of Postal or Online Response Mode and Associations With Patient Experience and Satisfaction in the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- The nature and frequency of abdominal symptoms in cancer patients and their associations with time to help-seeking: evidence from a national audit of cancer diagnosis.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2018Article
- Associations between diagnostic pathways and care experience in colorectal cancer: evidence from patient-reported data.Frontline gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Symptom Signatures and Diagnostic Timeliness in Cancer Patients: A Review of Current Evidence.Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.) · 2018Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurveys of the experience of cancer patients are increasingly being introduced in different countries and used in cancer epidemiology research. Sampling processes, post-sampling mortality and survey non-response can influence the representativeness of cancer patient surveys.
methodsWe examined predictors of post-sampling mortality and non-response among patients initially included in the sampling frame of the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey. We also compared the respondents' diagnostic case-mix to other relevant populations of cancer patients, including incident and prevalent cases.
resultsOf 109,477 initially sampled cancer patients, 6273 (5.7%) died between sampling and survey mail-out. Older age and diagnosis of brain, lung and pancreatic cancer were associated with higher risk of post-sampling mortality. The overall response rate was 67% (67,713 respondents), being >70% for the most affluent patients and those diagnosed with colon or breast cancer and <50% for Asian or Black patients, those under 35 and those diagnosed with brain cancer. The diagnostic case-mix of respondents varied substantially from incident or prevalent cancer cases.
conclusionsRespondents to the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey represent a population of recently treated cancer survivors. Although patient survey data can provide unique insights for improving cancer care quality, features of survey populations need to be acknowledged when analysing and interpreting findings from studies using such data.
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.