ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
How Men with Prostate Cancer Choose Specialists: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer: A systematic review update.European journal of cancer care · 2022Pooled it
- GPT-4 generates accurate and readable patient education materials aligned with current oncological guidelines: A randomized assessment.PloS one · 2025Trial
- Insurance Network Status and 1-Year Health Care Utilization and Outpatient Costs Among Commercially Insured Patients With Newly Diagnosed and Non-Definitively Treated Prostate Cancer, 2010-2021.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Treatment decision-making among patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: A qualitative study.Oral oncology · 2021Article
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
objectiveThe specific specialist that a patient sees can have a large influence on the type of care they receive.
methodsWe administered semistructured interviews with 47 men diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma between 2012 and 2014. Telephone interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a systematic thematic approach.
resultsThree profiles of patients emerged for choosing specialists: active (21.3%), partially active (53.2%), and passive (25.5%). Active patients conducted substantial research when choosing a diagnosing urologist and a treating specialist: they searched online, consulted other men with prostate cancer, and/or visited multiple specialists for opinions. Partially active patients took only 1 additional step to find a treating specialist on their own after receiving a referral from their diagnosing urologist. Passive patients relied exclusively on referrals from their primary care physicians (PCPs) and diagnosing urologists.
conclusionThe majority of patients relied on their PCPs for referrals to diagnosing urologists and on their diagnosing urologists to choose the treating specialist. Given these findings and the significance of specialist choice in determining treatment, it is important that PCPs recognize their indirect but potentially important effect on treatment choice when making referrals for prostate cancer. PCPs should consider counseling patients about seeking second opinions from providers with different treatment perspectives and participating in treatment decisions.
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.