ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2017
Information Needs of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgical Oncology Patients.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2017. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A review, evaluation and content mapping study of Australian patient-facing online pancreatobiliary cancer resources.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Review
- Patient-centered outcomes for gastrointestinal cancer care: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Symptom and functional recovery monitoring in thoracic surgery.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- Psychological stress and pancreatic cancer patients: a qualitative systematic review protocol.JBI evidence synthesis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A marked knowledge gap exists concerning the information needs of hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgical oncology patients. We investigated the comprehensive information needs of this patient population, including the type and amount of information desired, as well as the preferred method of receiving information. A questionnaire was administered to patients being treated surgically for cancers of the liver, pancreas, gallbladder, or bile ducts at Toronto General Hospital, part of the University Health Network, in Toronto, Canada. The questionnaire examined patients' information needs across six domains of information: medical, practical, physical, emotional, social, and spiritual. Among 36 respondents, the importance of information and amount of information desired differed significantly by domain (both p < 0.001). This group of patients rated information in the medical and physical domains as most important, though they also desired specific items of information from the emotional, practical, and social domains. Patients' overwhelming preference was to receive information via a one-on-one consultation with a healthcare provider. It is important for healthcare providers working with HPB surgical oncology patients to be comprehensive when providing information related to patients' cancer diagnosis, prognosis, associated symptoms, and side effects of treatment. Certain emotional, practical, and social issues (e.g., fears of cancer recurrence, drug coverage options, relationship changes) should be addressed as well. Face-to-face interactions should be the primary mode of delivering information to patients. Our findings are being used to guide the training of healthcare providers and the development of educational resources specific to HPB surgical oncology 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.