Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31218415›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020

Cancer patients' perceptions of palliative care.

Benjamin Chosich, Marjorie Burgess, Arul Earnest, Michael Franco, Fiona Runacres, Leeroy William, Peter Poon, Jaclyn Yoong

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Barriers to Early Palliative Care.Han'guk Hosup'isu Wanhwa Uiryo Hakhoe chi = The Korean journal of hospice and palliative care · 2020
    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

8 authors.

Benjamin ChosichMcCulloch House Supportive and Palliative Care Unit, Monash Health, Monash University, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.
Marjorie BurgessMcCulloch House Supportive and Palliative Care Unit, Monash Health, Monash University, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.
Arul EarnestMonash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Michael FrancoMcCulloch House Supportive and Palliative Care Unit, Monash Health, Monash University, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.
Fiona RunacresMcCulloch House Supportive and Palliative Care Unit, Monash Health, Monash University, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.
Leeroy WilliamMcCulloch House Supportive and Palliative Care Unit, Monash Health, Monash University, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.
Peter PoonMcCulloch House Supportive and Palliative Care Unit, Monash Health, Monash University, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.
Jaclyn YoongMcCulloch House Supportive and Palliative Care Unit, Monash Health, Monash University, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia. Jaclyn.Yoong@monashhealth.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9110-5606

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDespite clear benefits of early integration of palliative care (PC) and oncology, concerns remain about negative perceptions of PC. Our aim was to explore current knowledge and perceptions of PC in cancer patients.

methodsWe conducted a prospective, cross-sectional survey. A 16-item questionnaire was distributed to all cancer patients (N = 103) upon admission to the oncology ward of an Australian tertiary academic hospital. Chi-squared test was used to examine for significant factors related to patients' perceptions.

resultsNinety-six patients (93%) completed the questionnaire; 76% had metastatic cancer. We explored the following domains:Experience and knowledge: 76% had heard of PC; 21% had received PC. Self-rated PC knowledge was varied. Forty-five percent believed that PC was only associated with EOLC; those more likely to disagree had received PC services (p = 0.039).Integration of PC and oncology: Majority believed that they could receive oncology care (86%) and anti-cancer treatment (81%) whilst receiving PC. Those who had heard of PC and with better self-rated knowledge were more likely to believe that they could receive concurrent anti-cancer treatment (p = 0.005, p = 0.045, respectively).Feelings: 77% felt comforted with PC involvement; this was significantly associated with older age (p = 0.047) and understanding that oncology (p < 0.005) and anti-cancer treatment (p = 0.013) could continue. However, some felt frightened (40%) and hopeless (29%) about referral to PC. Fifty percent felt more comfortable with referral to 'supportive care' services (versus PC).

conclusionsOur survey demonstrates reasonable understanding and relatively positive feelings about PC, associated with experience and knowledge. Nonetheless, there is ongoing need for better patient and public education about PC.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPalliative CarePerceptionProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesCancerIntegrationPalliative carePerceptions

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.