Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31502228›Full record

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

Question prompts to empower cancer patients: results of a randomized controlled trial.

T Zetzl, D Mann, S Gruner, M Schuler, E Jentschke, S Neuderth, C Roch, B van Oorschot

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Optimizing the design and implementation of question prompt lists to support person-centred care: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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.

T ZetzlInterdisciplinary Centre for palliative medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany. Zetzl_T@ukw.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6326-0702
D MannInterdisciplinary Centre for palliative medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
S GrunerInterdisciplinary Centre for palliative medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
M SchulerDepartment of Psychotherapy and Medical Psychology, Rehabilitation Sciences Section, University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
E JentschkeInterdisciplinary Centre for palliative medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
S NeuderthDepartment of Applied Social Sciences, University of Applied Sciences Wuerzburg-Schweinfurt, Wuerzburg, Germany.
C RochInterdisciplinary Centre for palliative medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
B van OorschotInterdisciplinary Centre for palliative medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Krebshilfe 70112812
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn addition to question prompts for information transfer, we also used prompts to facilitate the expression of emotions. Our aim was to investigate how a question prompt list (QPL) is accepted by patients and whether it enhances interactional empowerment of the patients in the consultation with the radio-oncological treatment team before the beginning of radiotherapy. METHODOLOGY: Adult cancer patients before the beginning of radiotherapy were randomly assigned to the intervention group (IG) or control group (CG). The patients in the IG received a QPL with predefined subsets and subject areas. After the physician's consultation, both groups completed a self-developed, content validated questionnaire on interactional empowerment. The IG evaluated the QPL using a self-developed instrument.

resultA total of 279 adult cancer patients participated in the study (IG n = 139/CG n = 140). The participants of the IG reported a significantly higher interactional empowerment compared with those of the CG (t(277) = - 2.71, p = .007, 95% CI [- 1.61, - 0.26], d = 0.29). 60.4% of the IG agreed "rather" or "very" that they used the QPL in consultation with the medical team.

conclusionThe QPL used in the consultation improved the self-assessed competence for interaction with the medical team and strengthened the interactional empowerment. The QPL was well accepted by the patients and is to be introduced into a routine as a practicable and simple instrument in the future. The support of patients in addressing concerns and fears is an important innovation.

Indexed as

Patient AdvocacyPower, PsychologicalAdultCommunicationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsReferral and ConsultationSelf-AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesEmpowermentInformation needsOncologyQuestion prompt lists

Identifiers

PMID31502228

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.