ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2020
What matters to you? - Free-text comments in a questionnaire from patients undergoing radiotherapy.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Radiography students wishing to work in the field of radiation therapy: A French experience.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Perceptions and recall of treatment for prostate cancer: A survey of two populations.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost cancer patients undergo external radiotherapy (RT) at some stage during their treatment trajectory and RT is often associated with unfamiliar procedures in a highly technical environment. The purpose of this study was to explore how patients experience RT and the related processes, as described in free-text comments in a large Swedish survey with questionnaires including items on psychosocial climate and treatment environment.
methodsThe data consisted of free-text comments from one open-ended question: "Is there anything else you want us to know" and were analysed using qualitative content analysis.
resultsOf 825 returned questionnaires, 261 contained free-text comments from patients (32%). The hand-written, free-text comments reflected the patients' experience of the RT process and were abstracted into the four major categories with sub-categories: experiencing the high-tech RT environment, understanding the RT procedures and side effects, dealing with daily life during RT, and the nurses' role and performance. The categories reflect the patients' experiences and emphasize how important it is to evaluate what really matters to the patients when changing procedures, practices, and how to minimize disturbances in the patients' daily lives.
conclusionThe main conclusions from this study are that the involvement of patients in choosing daily appointment times, providing good information during the RT process to make the patients feel safe, experience and attitude of the staff and respect for the patient's autonomy are highly ranked values for patients. An implementation of person-centred care may help relieve many of these problems.
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.