Trial reportPloS one2017
Comparing two types of perspective taking as strategies for detecting distress amongst parents of children with cancer: A randomised trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Empathy is not so perfect! -For a descriptive and wide conception of empathy.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023Article
- Perspective-Taking and Perspective-Sharing in Pediatric Education: Exploring Connections Between Strategies of Medical Students and Patients' Caregivers.Perspectives on medical education · 2023Article
- Health promotion in the workplaces: fostering resilience in times of organizational change.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2019Article
- Article
- Communication in pediatric oncology: State of the field and research agenda.Pediatric blood & cancer · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare two perspective taking strategies on (i) clinicians' ability to accurately identify negative thoughts and feelings of parents of children with cancer, and (ii) clinician distress.
methodsSixty-three hematology-oncology professionals and nursing students watched a video featuring parents of children with cancer. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In the imagine-self group, they were instructed to imagine the feelings and life consequences which they would experience if they were in the parents' position. In the imagine-other group, they were instructed to imagine the feelings and life consequences experienced by the parents. Parent-clinician agreement on thoughts/feelings was evaluated (standard stimulus paradigm). Clinician distress was also assessed.
resultsThe intervention was effective in manipulating perspective type. The groups did not significantly differ on parent-clinician agreement. Concentrating on personal feelings (imagine-self strategy) did predict lower agreement when controlling for trait empathy. Clinician distress was higher in the imagine-self group.
conclusionAlthough the link between perspective type and detection of distress remains unclear, the results suggest that clinicians who highly focus on their own feelings tend to be less accurate on parental distress and experience more distress themselves. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This research could potentially improve communication training and burnout prevention.
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.