ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018
The perceived severity of a disease and the impact of the vocabulary used to convey information: using Rasch scaling in a simulated oncological scenario.
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 4 papers.
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.
- Italian onco-haematological patients' preferences in bad news communication: a preliminary investigation.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- A Rasch Analysis of the School-Related Well-Being (SRW) Scale: Measuring Well-Being in the Transition from Primary to Secondary School.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Predictors of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Prevention Practices Using Health Belief Model Among Employees in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2020.Infection and drug resistance · 2020Article
- Pragmatic abilities in children with neurodevelopmental disorders: development of Pragmatic Abilities Questionnaire based on the Rasch rating scale model.Psychology research and behavior management · 2019Article
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
backgroundHealthcare staff should be aware of the importance that patients may attach to the words that are used to convey information. This is relevant in terms of the patients' understanding. Modeling how people understand the information conveyed in a medical context may help health practitioners to better appreciate the patients' approach. PURPOSE: 1) Analyze the participants' self-reported perception of the type of information provided in an oncological scenario in terms of three dimensions: impairment to their health, risks associated with the disease itself and commitment required to undergo the treatment; and 2) show the benefits of using Rasch scaling for the analysis of the data. Starting from a survey, Rasch scaling produces a unidimensional logit-interval scale relating to the extent to which each item conveys a latent dimension. These were related to structure, in particular concerning communication by means of opposite vs. unipolar language. SUBJECTS AND
methodsThe participants rated 82 items of information in a questionnaire regarding their perception of impairment to their health (H) and the risks (R) and commitment relating to the treatment prescribed (T).
resultsThe scaling produced an item bank for healthcare staff to consult in order to estimate the importance the recipient would be likely to attach to the vocabulary used and the likely impact of the information in terms of the patient's condition. Furthermore, the use of opposites was generally associated with a clearer impression of whether the information given was generally only very negative or slightly negative, whereas 'neutral' information was often perceived as being very negative. ACTUAL
findingsIs possible to estimate people's understanding more precisely (in terms of H, R and T) which can help healthcare practitioners to modulate the way they convey information. LIMITATIONS: The participants in the study were healthy volunteers and the context was simulated.
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.