ArticleJournal of patient safety2019
The Patient Perspective on Errors in Cancer Care: Results of a Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Journal of patient safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preventing diagnostic errors in critical care using millimeter-wave technology: A transformative approach to patient safety.World journal of critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Disclosure of medical errors to patients by medical professionals: a protocol for a qualitative systematic review.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Exploring transitions in care among patients with head and neck CANCER: a multimethod study.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Clinical decision making in prostate cancer care-evaluation of EAU-guidelines use and novel decision support software.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Brain cancer patient and support persons' experiences of psychosocial care: a mapping of research outputs.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Review
- Article
- Physicians' Difficulties Due to Patient Safety Incidents in Korea: a Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- The System for Patient Assessment of Cancer Experiences (SPACE): a cross-sectional study examining feasibility and acceptability.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Article
- Assessing patients' experiences of cancer care across the treatment pathway: a mapping review of recent psychosocial cancer care publications.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Review
- Can models of self-management support be adapted across cancer types? A comparison of unmet self-management needs for patients with breast or colorectal cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to explore medical oncology outpatients' perceived experiences of errors in their cancer care.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted. English-speaking medical oncology outpatients aged 18 years or older were recruited from 9 Australian cancer treatment centers. Participants completed 2 paper-and-pencil questionnaires: an initial survey on demographic, disease and treatment characteristics upon recruitment; and a second survey on their experiences of errors in cancer care 1 month later.
resultsA total of 1818 patients (80%) consented to participate, and of these, 1136 (62%) completed both surveys. One hundred forty-eight participants (13%) perceived that an error had been made in their care, of which one third (n = 46) reported that the error was associated with severe harm. Of those who perceived an error had been made, less than half reported that they had received an explanation for the error (n = 65, 45%) and only one third reported receiving an apology (n = 50, 35%) or being told that steps had been taken to prevent the error from reoccurring (n = 52, 36%). Patients with university or vocational level education (odds ratio [OR] = 1.6 [1.09-2.45], P = 0.0174) and those who received radiotherapy (OR = 1.72 [1.16-2.57]; P = 0.0076) or "other" treatments (OR = 3.23 [1.08-9.63]; P = 0.0356) were significantly more likely to report an error in care.
conclusionsThere is significant scope to improve communication with patients and appropriate responses by the healthcare system after a perceived error in cancer care.
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.