Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32627258›Full record

ArticlePsycho-oncology2020

Hematological cancer patient-caregiver dyadic communication: A longitudinal examination of cancer communication concordance.

Laura A Siminoff, Maureen Wilson-Genderson, Stefan Barta, Maria D Thomson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psycho-oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. What are We Asking Patients to Do? A Critical Ethical Review of the Limits of Patient Self-Advocacy in the Oncology Setting.The New bioethics : a multidisciplinary journal of biotechnology and the body · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Patient-caregiver communication concordance in cancer-refinement of the Cancer Communication Assessment Tool in an Australian sample.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  11. Social relationships and relational pain in brain tumor patients and their partners.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Laura A SiminoffCollege of Public Health and Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Maureen Wilson-GendersonCollege of Public Health and Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6361-358X
Stefan BartaPerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Maria D ThomsonVCU School of Medicine Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5729-8720
Temple University · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USVirginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

Informal caregiver burden in advanced cancer: Economic and health outcomesR01CA196576 · NCI · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI SIMINOFF, LAURA A., THOMSON, MARIA D. · 2015 to 2019
$3.8M
Communication and Economic Outcomes for Cancer SurvivorsR01CA168647 · NCI · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI SIMINOFF, LAURA A. · 2013 to 2017
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS 5R01CA196576NCI NIH HHS R01 CA168647NCI NIH HHS R01 CA196576
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveInformal caregivers play a fundamental role in care and decision making with hematological cancer patients. Concordant patient-caregiver communication is a critical antecedent to high quality decision making. Little is known about patterns of dyadic communication throughout the cancer treatment continuum. The objective of this study was to assess patterns of cancer communication concordance regarding treatment and care among hematological cancer patients undergoing active treatment and their informal caregivers and test whether patterns were associated with participant characteristics.

methodsA case series of hematological cancer patient-caregiver dyads (n = 171) were recruited from oncology clinics in Virginia and Pennsylvania and followed for 2 years. Latent Class Growth Models (LCGM) were used to analyze longitudinal data captured using Cancer Communication Assessment Tool for Patients and Families (CCAT-PF) and the association with participant characteristics.

resultsWhite patient-caregiver dyads demonstrated decreased communication concordance and African American dyads demonstrated increased communication concordance over time. Lower communication concordance was found among dyads with lower levels of education and income, and cancers diagnosed at more advanced stages; these relationships were stable over time. Modeling identified the presence of three distinct communication groups (Stable Concordant (57.4%), Fluctuating Medium Concordant (37.8%), High Discordant (5.4%)) that differed by baseline level of communication concordance, patterns of concordance over time, race, income and the dyad relationship.

conclusionsPatient-caregiver cancer communication concordance was not static overtime. Results suggest the presence of a new dyadic cancer communication typology that could help preemptively identify dyads at risk for communication difficulties that impede treatment decision making.

Indexed as

CommunicationAdultAgedCaregiversFamilyFemaleHematologic NeoplasmsHumansLatent Class AnalysisLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesVirginiacancercancer communication concordancecaregiversCCAT-PFhematological canceroncologypsycho-oncology

Identifiers

PMID32627258
PMCPMC8474783
OpenAlexW3040660727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.