Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28261901›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017

Discussing prognosis and treatment goals with patients with advanced cancer: A qualitative analysis of oncologists' language.

Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou, Lauren M Hamel, Chan L Thai, David Debono, Robert A Chapman, Terrance L Albrecht, Louis A Penner, Susan Eggly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Timing of prognostic discussions in people with advanced cancer: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Predicaments and coping strategies in implementing cancer truth-telling: a qualitative content analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Wen-Ying Sylvia ChouNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9140-6094
Lauren M HamelWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Chan L ThaiSanta Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
David DebonoWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Robert A ChapmanJosephine Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Terrance L AlbrechtWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Louis A PennerWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Susan EgglyWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.

Funding

Tumor Biology and Microenvironment (Program 1)P30CA022453 · NCI · WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI PAUL M STEMMER · 1985 to 2026
$68.4M
Southeast Michigan Community Network ProgramU54CA153606 · NCI · WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI ALBRECHT, TERRANCE L · 2010 to 2015
$4.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA022453NCI NIH HHS U54 CA153606
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe National Academy of Medicine recommends that cancer patients be knowledgeable of their prognosis to enable them to make informed treatment decisions, but research suggests few patients receive this information.

objectiveThis qualitative study describes oncologists' language during discussions of prognosis and treatment goals in clinical interactions with African American patients diagnosed with cancer.

designWe analysed transcripts from video recordings of clinical interactions between patients with Stage III or IV cancer (n=26) and their oncologists (n=9). In-depth discourse analysis was conducted to describe and interpret oncologists' communication behaviours and common linguistic features in the interactions. SETTING AND

participantsData were from a larger study of patient-provider communication between African Americans and oncologists at two cancer hospitals in Detroit.

resultsPrognosis was discussed in 73.1% (n=19) of the interactions; treatment goals were discussed in 92.3% (n=24). However, analysis revealed that oncologists' description of prognosis was vague (e.g. "prognosis is a bit worse in your case") and rarely included a survival estimate. Oncologists often used ambiguous terminology, including euphemisms and jargon, and emphasized uncertainty (e.g. "lesions are suspicious for the disease"). Conversation about prognosis was frequently brief, moving quickly to the urgency and details of treatment. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates how oncologists' language may obscure discussion of prognosis and treatment goals. The identified behaviours may lead to missed opportunities in eliciting and discussing patients' knowledge about and preferences for their care. Patient-, provider- and system-oriented interventions are needed to improve clinical communication, especially among minority patients with advanced cancer.

Indexed as

CommunicationOncologistsAdultAgedBlack or African AmericanFemaleHumansLanguageMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient Care PlanningPhysician-Patient RelationsPrognosisQualitative Researchcancerdiscourse analysispatient-provider communicationprognosis

Identifiers

PMID28261901
PMCPMC5600249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.