Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31199597›Full record

ReviewCancer medicine2019

Advanced cancer patients' understanding of prognostic information: Applying insights from psychological research.

Heather M Derry, M Carrington Reid, Holly G Prigerson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06199570 (Support for Cancer Patients Awaiting News), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06199570 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Support for Cancer Patients Awaiting News (SCAN Study): Pilot Testing a Stress Management Program

TypeinterventionalSponsorHackensack Meridian HealthRan2024 to 2027Enrolled60ConditionsLung CancerArmsAdapted Stress Management Program, Enhanced Usual Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Outcomes That Matter in Gastrointestinal Cancer Care: A Focus Group Study of Patient-Centred Outcomes Identified by Patients and Care Partners.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Information Provision for Patients Who Undergo Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Heather M DerryWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0003-0753-0859
M Carrington ReidWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.
Holly G PrigersonWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.

Funding

Pilot CoreP30AG022845 · NIA · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Manney Carrington Reid · 2003 to 2026
$15.2M
Psychosocial Approaches to Better Understanding & End-Stage Cancer Care (PROTECT)R35CA197730 · NCI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Holly Gwen Prigerson · 2015 to 2026
$11.2M
The Weill Cornell Medicine Research Training Program in Behavioral GeriatricsT32AG049666 · NIA · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI SARA J CZAJA, Manney Carrington Reid · 2016 to 2026
$3.2M
Reid Aging and Pain Research Training ProgramK24AG053462 · NIA · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI REID, MANNEY CARRINGTON · 2016 to 2025
$1.8M
NCI NIH HHS R35 CA197730NIA NIH HHS K24 AG053462NIA NIH HHS P30 AG022845NIA NIH HHS T32 AG049666
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeInformed medical decision-making at the end of life often requires engaging in highly emotional, potentially upsetting discussions about prognosis, while ensuring that patients grasp its personal meaning. Behavioral science offers insights into ways to promote prognostic understanding among patients with advanced cancer. SUMMARY: In this literature review, we synthesize complementary findings from basic behavioral science and applied clinical research, which suggest that psychological factors can significantly influence both patients' clinical interactions and their prognostic understanding. For example, stress and emotion can affect cognition, which may shape how patients process complex medical information. Additionally, clinicians may be less likely to share prognostic information with distressed patients who, in turn, may be hesitant to ask about their prognosis for fear of the answer. Although traditional approaches for increasing advanced cancer patients' understanding focus on improving information delivery, these efforts may not be sufficient without corresponding interventions that assist patients in managing distress.

conclusionsPsychological barriers may limit opportunities for patients to fully understand their prognosis and to receive high quality of end-of-life care that is linked with an accurate understanding of their disease and treatment options. Failure to attend to patients' emotional distress may undermine efforts to improve medical communication. This underscores the importance of increased attention to the psychological factors that impede patients' comprehension of material shared in cancer clinic visits, in order to inform interventions that address patient distress both before and after receiving "bad news." Integrating findings from psychological research into prognostic discussions may not only improve advanced cancer patients' mental health, but may also promote their ability to make informed, value-consistent medical decisions.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingComprehensionHumansNeoplasmsPhysician-Patient RelationsPrognosisTerminal Careanxietydelivery of health carehealth knowledgeneoplasmspsychological factorspsycho-oncology

Identifiers

PMID31199597
PMCPMC6675734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.