ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2017
Overview on Patient Centricity in Cancer Care.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Use of Patient Preference Information in Benefit-Risk Assessment, Health Technology Assessment, and Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions: A Systematic Literature Review of Attempts and Initiatives.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Development of the SAVE study protocol to use lived experience to assess the value of serious health-related suffering and palliative care.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Beyond Participation: Evaluating the Role of Patients in Designing Oncology Clinical Trials.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Patients at the Heart of the Scientific Dialogue: An Industry Perspective.Oncology and therapy · 2023Article
- Pertuzumab in Combination with Trastuzumab and Docetaxel in the Neoadjuvant Treatment for HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2023Article
- Patient involvement at the managerial level: the effectiveness of a patient and family advisory council at a regional cancer centre in Sweden.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Comprehensive value-based cancer care in India: Opportunities for systems strengthening.The Indian journal of medical research · 2021Review
- Holistic view of patients with melanoma of the skin: how can health systems create value and achieve better clinical outcomes?Ecancermedicalscience · 2019Review
- Engaging cancer patients in clinical practice guideline development: a pilot study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Successful implementation of treatment in cancer care partially depends on how patients' perspectives are taken into account, as preferences of health care professionals and patients may differ. Objectives of this exploratory research were (I) to identify patient preferences and values (PPVs) in cancer care as indicated by patient organizations (POs), (II) to determine how these PPVs are captured in cancer care guidelines and (III) to review how guidelines take into account these PPVs. Based on a survey developed and completed by 19 POs, a literature review was conducted to analyse how patient perspectives are incorporated in oncology treatment guidelines. Based on survey results traditional health technology assessment value propositions of oncology care, such as extended life, treatment-free remission and pain reduction, were also highly rated by POs. However, the heterogeneity of cancer PPVs were clearly reflected in the survey results. PPVs in cancer care guidelines were mostly limited to those micro-level aspects that are strictly related to health care provision, such as side-effects and comorbidities. Patient experience, emotional support and convenience of care were relatively neglected fields in the reviewed guidelines. Patient engagement was rarely presented in the guideline development phase. POs believe that patients should be encouraged to take an active role in their own care due to the heterogeneity of cancer patients and PPVs. Even if patient-centricity is a leading paradigm in cancer policy, based on our research it is not yet standard practice to include patients or POs at all appropriate levels of decision-making processes that are related to their health and well-being. Patient engagement should be an integral part of cancer care decision-making. This complexity must be reflected throughout policy making, avoiding a population level "one-size-fits-all" solution.
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.