Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31437262›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Communication interventions in adult and pediatric oncology: A scoping review and analysis of behavioral targets.

Bryan A Sisk, Ginny L Schulz, Jennifer W Mack, Lauren Yaeger, James DuBois

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Parental views on communication between children and clinicians in pediatric oncology: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bryan A SiskDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2456-2476
Ginny L SchulzDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6522-5268
Jennifer W MackPediatric Oncology and Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; and Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Lauren YaegerBecker Library, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.
James DuBoisDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of Ameica.ORCID 0000-0002-3712-7051
Washington University in St. Louis · USBoston Children's Hospital · US

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving communication requires that clinicians and patients change their behaviors. Interventions might be more successful if they incorporate principles from behavioral change theories. We aimed to determine which behavioral domains are targeted by communication interventions in oncology.

methodsSystematic search of literature indexed in Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov (2000-October 2018) for intervention studies targeting communication behaviors of clinicians and/or patients in oncology. Two authors extracted the following information: population, number of participants, country, number of sites, intervention target, type and context, study design. All included studies were coded based on which behavioral domains were targeted, as defined by Theoretical Domains Framework.

findingsEighty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Interventions varied widely in which behavioral domains were engaged. Knowledge and skills were engaged most frequently (85%, 75/88 and 73%, 64/88, respectively). Fewer than 5% of studies engaged social influences (3%, 3/88) or environmental context/resources (5%, 4/88). No studies engaged reinforcement. Overall, 7/12 behavioral domains were engaged by fewer than 30% of included studies. We identified methodological concerns in many studies. These 88 studies reported 188 different outcome measures, of which 156 measures were reported by individual studies.

conclusionsMost communication interventions target few behavioral domains. Increased engagement of behavioral domains in future studies could support communication needs in feasible, specific, and sustainable ways. This study is limited by only including interventions that directly facilitated communication interactions, which excluded stand-alone educational interventions and decision-aids. Also, we applied stringent coding criteria to allow for reproducible, consistent coding, potentially leading to underrepresentation of behavioral domains.

Indexed as

BehaviorCommunicationMedical OncologyAdultChildHumans

Identifiers

PMID31437262
PMCPMC6705762
OpenAlexW2969908637

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.