ArticleSurgery2019
Patient preferences on the use of technology in cancer surveillance after curative surgery: A cross-sectional analysis.
Article in Surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Surveillance-Associated Anxiety After Curative-Intent Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Survey of Danish Head and Neck Cancer Patients' Positions on Personalized Medicine, Gene Tests, and Personalized Follow-Up.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Patient experiences with patient-led, home-based follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Does health literacy impact technological comfort in cancer patients?American journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Telemedicine Acceptance Among Older Adult Patients With Cancer: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Multicenter evaluation of breast cancer patients' satisfaction and experience with oncology telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.British journal of cancer · 2021Observational
- Follow-up after breast cancer: Variations, best practices, and opportunities for improvement according to health care professionals.European journal of cancer care · 2021Article
- Post-discharge Telemonitoring of Physical Activity, Vital Signs, and Patient-Reported Symptoms in Older Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery.Annals of surgical oncology · 2021Observational
- Telemedicine in Oral and Maxillo-Facial Surgery: An Effective Alternative in Post COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Is Patient Satisfaction Dictated by Quality of Care Among Patients Undergoing Complex Surgical Procedures for a Malignant Indication?Annals of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- Telemedicine: Patient-Provider Clinical Engagement During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020Review
- Identifying subgroups of well-being among patients with cancer: Differences in attitudes and preferences around surveillance after curative-intent surgery.Journal of surgical oncology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in communication technology have enabled new methods of delivering test results to cancer survivors. We sought to determine patient preferences regarding the use of newer technology in delivering test results during cancer surveillance.
methodsA single institutional, cross-sectional analysis of the preferences of adult cancer survivors regarding the means (secure digital communication versus phone call or office visit) to receive surveillance test results was undertaken.
resultsAmong 257 respondents, the average age was 59.1 years (SD 13.5) and 61.8% were female. Common malignancies included melanoma/sarcoma (29.5%), thyroid (25.7%), breast (22.8%), and gastrointestinal (22.0%) cancer. Although patients expressed a relative preference to receive normal surveillance results via MyChart or secure e-mail, the majority preferred abnormal imaging (87.2%) or blood results (85.9%) to be communicated by in-office appointments or phone calls irrespective of age or cancer type. Patients with a college degree or higher were more likely to prefer electronic means of communication of abnormal blood results compared with a telephone call or in-person visit (odds ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-4.73, P < .05). In contrast, patients >65 years were more likely to express a preference for telephone or in-person communication of normal imaging results (odds ratio: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.16-3.56, P < .05) versus patients ≤65 years. Preference also varied according to malignancy type.
conclusionAlthough many cancer patients preferred to receive "normal" surveillance results electronically, the majority preferred receiving abnormal results via direct conversation with their provider. Shifting routine communication of normal surveillance results to technology-based applications may improve patient satisfaction and decrease health care system costs.
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.