ArticlePatient education and counseling2019
Patient and provider perspectives on delivery of oral cancer therapies.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2019. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility, Acceptability, and Potential Effects of a Digital Oral Anticancer Agent Intervention: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Perspective and Experience of Patients with Aplastic Anemia on Medication Adherence.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Adherence to Oral Targeted Anti-Lung Cancer Therapy: A Qualitative Interview Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Adherence to oral therapies among patients with renal cell carcinoma: Post hoc analysis of the ECOG-ACRIN E2805 trial.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe introduction of oral cancer therapies presents new challenges to delivery of quality cancer care. Little is known about how patients and providers address and overcome these challenges. We conducted a qualitative study exploring the range of patient and provider perspectives on oral cancer therapies.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and providers at a tertiary referral center and county safety-net hospital in Dallas, TX. Interviews probed perspectives on differences between parenteral chemotherapy and oral therapies, adherence, communication, and cost/insurance. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically using a deductively-driven coding scheme corresponding to the interview guide.
resultsWe conducted 22 patient (13 at tertiary referral center, 9 at safety-net hospital) and 10 provider (7 oncologists, 2 nurses, 1 pharmacist) interviews. Key themes from interviews included: (1) differences in parenteral chemotherapy vs. oral therapy; (2) adherence and dosing; and (3) experiences related to cost and communication.
conclusionsNearly all providers described challenges engaging with and educating patients about oral cancer therapies. Despite our initial hypothesis, safety-net patients encountered few barriers accessing oral therapies compared to patients receiving care in the tertiary referral center. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings will guide future interventions to monitor and support cancer patients receiving oral therapies.
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.