Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30519005›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018

Delivering bad news: patient's perspective and opinions.

Krzysztof Sobczak, Katarzyna Leoniuk, Agata Janaszczyk

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Values elicitation among surgical oncologists: Findings from an international survey.European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2026
    Article
  4. In the end, it is the word that remains: communicating bad news in pediatric oncology.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Prognostic beliefs in patients with cancer receiving outpatient palliative care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    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. Unmet non-medical needs of cancer patients in Poland: a quantitative and qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  13. Rethinking parameters of "success" in breaking bad news conversations from patient's perspective: the successful delivery process model.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Krzysztof SobczakDepartment of Social Medicine and Social Pathology, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland, krzysztof.sobczak@gumed.edu.pl.
Katarzyna LeoniukDepartment of Social Medicine and Social Pathology, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland, krzysztof.sobczak@gumed.edu.pl.
Agata JanaszczykDepartment of Social Medicine and Social Pathology, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland, krzysztof.sobczak@gumed.edu.pl.
Gdańsk Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of our research was to gain knowledge about patients' opinions, experiences, and preferences with regard to the way the news is being delivered to them. MATERIALS AND

methodsDetailed research was carried out on a group of 314 patients using the CAWI (Computer-Assisted Web Interview) technique. Adult responders who had earlier received bad news were questioned about their opinion about the way the doctor acted while delivering bad news and how he did it.

resultsPatients, who define the following aspects of their visit as negative/lacking: 1) doctor's behavior in the moment of delivering bad news, 2) amount of time devoted to the visit, 3) lack of doctor's attention, 4) usage of medical terminology, 5) doctor's honesty, 6) emotional and cognitive support from the doctor, more often tend to change the doctor in charge of their therapy or decide to cease the medical treatment.

conclusionDoctors' behavior and the way they deliver news to patients are key elements that strongly influence patients' future therapy. It makes an impact on patient's decision whether to continue or cease the treatment. In the first case, it also leads the patient to choose to continue the treatment under the guidance of the same specialist or to find another one. The data that we acquired and that we will discuss below will form the basis for editing a communication protocol concerning delivering bad news. It is necessary to create such a protocol in order to improve the quality of communication with patients, especially as regards delivering bad news to them.

Indexed as

diagnosisdoctor-patient relationshiptruth disclosure

Identifiers

PMID30519005
PMCPMC6239094
OpenAlexW2899905526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.