ArticleJournal of pain and symptom management2016
Adherence to Measuring What Matters Items When Caring for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies Versus Solid Tumors.
Article in Journal of pain and symptom management, 2016. 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Work Participation of Hematological Cancer Survivors After Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Scoping Review.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Integrating Structured Peer Support Pathways for Patients Undergoing Cellular Therapies: Insights from a Participatory Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Palliative care during and following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Current opinion in supportive and palliative care · 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
8 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
contextMeasuring What Matters (MWM) prioritizes quality measures in palliative care practice. Hematologic malignancy patients are less likely to access palliative care, yet little is known about their unique needs. Differences in MWM adherence may highlight opportunities to improve palliative care in hematology.
objectivesTo assess adherence to MWM measures by palliative care clinicians caring for patients with hematologic malignancies, compared to those with solid tumors.
methodsWe used the Quality Data Collection Tool to assess completion of MWM measures across nine sites.
resultsWe included data from 678 patients' first visits and various care settings; 64 (9.4%) had a hematologic malignancy, whereas 614 (90.6%) had a solid tumor. Hematology patients were more likely to be seen in a hospital (52 or 81.3% vs. 420 or 68%), whereas solid tumor patients were more frequently seen at home or in clinics (160 or 26% vs. 7 or 10.9%). Of the nine MWM measures we assessed, high adherence (>90%) was seen regardless of tumor type in measures #3 (Pain Treatment), #7 (Spiritual Concerns), #8 (Treatment Preferences), and #9 (Care Consistent With Preferences). Clinicians seeing hematology patients were significantly less likely to meet measures #2 (Screening for Physical Symptoms; 57.8% vs. 84.2%, P < 0.001), and #5 (Discussion of Emotional Needs; 56.3% vs. 70.0%, P = 0.03).
conclusionMWM adherence regarding symptom assessment and meeting emotional needs was lower for patients with hematologic malignancies compared to those with solid tumors. This finding suggests two key areas for quality improvement initiatives in palliative care for patients with hematologic malignancies.
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.