Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32519450›Full record

ReviewJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020

A review of patient questions from physicist-patient consults.

Todd F Atwood, Derek W Brown, Titania Juang, Kevin L Moore, Kristen A McConnell, Jennifer M Steers, James D Murphy, Arno J Mundt, Todd Pawlicki

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Precision patient education using a "flipped classroom" approach.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022
    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

9 authors.

Todd F AtwoodDepartment of Radiation Medicine & Applied Sciences, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Derek W BrownDepartment of Radiation Medicine & Applied Sciences, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Titania JuangDepartment of Radiation Medicine & Applied Sciences, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Kevin L MooreDepartment of Radiation Medicine & Applied Sciences, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Kristen A McConnellDepartment of Radiation Medicine & Applied Sciences, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Jennifer M SteersDepartment of Radiation Medicine & Applied Sciences, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
James D MurphyDepartment of Radiation Medicine & Applied Sciences, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Arno J MundtDepartment of Radiation Medicine & Applied Sciences, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Todd PawlickiDepartment of Radiation Medicine & Applied Sciences, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo provide insight into the types of questions asked to medical physicists by patients during one-on-one physicist-patient consults at one institution. MATERIALS AND

methodsMedical physicists trained in patient communication techniques met with patients to provide an overview of the treatment planning and delivery processes, discuss the patient's treatment plan, and answer any technical questions. From August 2016 to December 2019, 152 physicist-patient consults were conducted. In the initial months of the study (August 2016-December 2017), following each physicist-patient consult, all patient questions were documented by the physicists. For the remaining time period (January 2018-December 2019), any newly encountered questions were periodically added to the list. The questions were compiled into a comprehensive list and organized into categories.

resultsThere were a total of 88 unique patient questions. These questions fit into four topical categories. Fifty-four questions (61.4%) were in the "Treatment Planning and Delivery Questions" category, 15 questions (17.1%) were in the "General Radiation Questions or Concerns" category, 13 questions (14.8%) were in the "Safety and Quality Assurance Questions" category, and 6 questions (6.8%) were in the "Medical Questions" category. Overall, patients were primarily concerned about how radiation works, the treatment planning and delivery processes, and what is being done to keep them safe throughout their treatment.

conclusionPhysicist-patient consults provided an opportunity to address the technical aspects of radiation therapy with patients in greater detail. The fact that patient questions could be conveniently grouped into only four topical categories indicates that it may be straightforward for other medical physicists to prepare for effectively addressing technical questions during physicist-patient consults.

Indexed as

Radiation OncologyHumansReferral and Consultationpatient communicationpatient educationpatient questionsphysicist-patient consults

Identifiers

PMID32519450
PMCPMC7484844

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.