ArticleJournal of oncology practice2016
Electronic Release of Pathology and Radiology Results to Patients: Opinions and Experiences of Oncologists.
Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- How technology impacts communication between cancer patients and their health care providers: A systematic literature review.International journal of medical informatics · 2021Pooled it
- The impact of health information technology on the management and follow-up of test results - a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Pooled it
- Patient-Reported Experiences With Viewing and Understanding Test Results in Patient Portals: Cross-Sectional Survey Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A targeted literature review on the impact of tailored interventions on patient outcomes in oncology.Oncogene · 2025Review
- Timing and Method of Patient-Provider Communication for Abnormal Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Results in Cirrhosis.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Timing of Liver Imaging Result Release Is Associated with Patients with Cirrhosis Reviewing Results Prior to Providers.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Perspectives on access to imaging digital health records in oncology: A mixed methods systematic review.Health policy and technology · 2024Review
- Navigating the Complexities of Brain Metastases Management.American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting · 2024Review
- Behavior Shifts in Patient Portal Usage During and After Policy Changes Around Test Result Delivery and Notification.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- Information transparency with immediate release: Oncology clinician and patient perceptions.American journal of surgery · 2024Article
- Patient and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Patient Access to Test Results via Web Portals: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Laboratory Results Release to Patients under the 21st Century Cures Act: The Eight Stakeholders Who Should Care.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- The impact of curated educational videos on pathology health literacy for patients with a pancreatic, colorectal, or prostate cancer diagnosis.Academic pathology · 2022Article
- Article
- Capturing the Impact of Patient Portals Based on the Quadruple Aim and Benefits Evaluation Frameworks: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Mobile Device Applications for Electronic Patient Portals in Oncology.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2019Article
- How do patients value and prioritize patient portal functionalities and usage factors? A conjoint analysis study with chronically ill patients.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Article
- Establishing priorities for implementation of large language models in pathology and laboratory medicine.Academic pathologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThere is an emerging standard to provide patients rapid electronic access to elements of their medical records. Although surveys of patients generally support it, this practice is controversial among oncologists, because few empiric data are available for scenarios of potentially life-threatening conditions like cancer. We report the views of oncologists about patient electronic access to radiology and pathology results that could potentially indicate disease progression.
methodsFour months before oncologists were surveyed, final results of radiology/pathology reports were routinely made available to patients online through a secure portal after a 7-day, hold to provide clinicians time to review and communicate results with the patients. Mixed methods were used to assess physician attitudes and experiences toward this change.
resultsOne hundred twenty-nine oncologists were surveyed, and 82 (64%) responded. A small majority (54%) responded that the release of reports was somewhat or very beneficial for patients who received normal radiology/pathology results before discussion with a physician, but 87% said it was somewhat or very harmful for patients to receive abnormal results before discussion. Forty-nine percent reported that release of reports had a somewhat or very negative impact on communication with their patients.
conclusionAlmost half of oncologists reported that sharing digital radiology and pathology records had a negative impact on their communication with patients. Patient surveys in similar cancer populations would complement the physician perspective. Efforts are needed to improve consensus among oncologists and patients on how to best communicate such results in a timely fashion.
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.