Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31095822›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2019

Appraising risk in active surveillance of localized prostate cancer.

Anne Hogden, Kate Churruca, Frances Rapport, David Gillatt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Appraising risk in active surveillance of localized prostate cancer.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    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

4 authors.

Anne HogdenFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4317-7960
Kate ChurrucaFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9923-3116
Frances RapportFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David GillattFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMen diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer are typically eligible for active surveillance of their cancer, involving monitoring for cancer progression and making judgements about the risks of prostate cancer against those of active intervention. Our study examined how risk for prostate cancer is perceived and experienced by patients undergoing active surveillance with their clinicians, how risk is communicated in clinical consultations, and the implications for treatment and care.

methodParticipants were nine patients and three clinicians from a university hospital urology clinic. A staged, qualitative, multi-method data collection approach was undertaken, comprising: observations of consultations; patient and clinician interviews; and patient surveys. The three data sets were analysed separately using thematic analysis and then integrated to give a comprehensive view of patient and clinician views.

resultsThirty data points (eight patient surveys; 10 observations of consultations between patients and clinicians; 10 patient interviews; and two clinician interviews) combined to create a detailed picture of how patients perceived and appraised risk, in three themes of "Making sense of risk", "Talking about risk" and "Responding to risk".

conclusionEffective risk communication needs to be finely tuned and timed to individual patient's priorities and information requirements. A structured information exchange process that identifies patients' priorities, and details key moments in risk assessment, so that complexities of risk are discussed in ways that are meaningful to patients, may benefit patient care. These findings could inform the development of patient-centric risk assessment procedures and service delivery models in prostate cancer care more broadly.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentWatchful WaitingAgedHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsQualitative ResearchSurveys and Questionnairesmodels of carepatient experiencepriorities for treatment

Identifiers

PMID31095822
PMCPMC6803412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.