Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32820068›Full record

ArticlePediatrics2020

Communication in Pediatric Oncology: A Qualitative Study.

Bryan A Sisk, Annie Friedrich, Lindsay J Blazin, Justin N Baker, Jennifer W Mack, James DuBois

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Hope in Pediatric Palliative Care: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Development and pre-testing of a family-centered digital intervention to help families know what to EXPECT from pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia therapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  11. Integration of Pediatric Palliative Care in Oncology: A Scoping Review.Journal of pediatrics. Clinical practice · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Journal of psychosocial oncology · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. JCO oncology practice · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Bryan A SiskDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Pediatrics and siskb@wustl.edu.
Annie FriedrichAlbert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics, Saint Louis University, St Louis, Missouri.
Lindsay J BlazinDepartment of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Justin N BakerDepartment of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Jennifer W MackDivision of Population Sciences, McGraw Patterson Center for Population Sciences and Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; and.
James DuBoisDivision of General Medical Sciences, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.

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

backgroundWhen children are seriously ill, parents rely on communication with their clinicians. However, in previous research, researchers have not defined how this communication should function in pediatric oncology. We aimed to identify these communication functions from parental perspectives.

methodsSemistructured interviews with 78 parents of children with cancer from 3 academic medical centers at 1 of 3 time points: treatment, survivorship, or bereavement. We analyzed interview transcripts using inductive and deductive coding.

resultsWe identified 8 distinct functions of communication in pediatric oncology. Six of these functions are similar to previous findings from adult oncology: (1) building relationships, (2) exchanging information, (3) enabling family self-management, (4) making decisions, (5) managing uncertainty, and (6) responding to emotions. We also identified 2 functions not previously described in the adult literature: (7) providing validation and (8) supporting hope. Supporting hope manifested as emphasizing the positives, avoiding false hopes, demonstrating the intent to cure, and redirecting toward hope beyond survival. Validation manifested as reinforcing "good parenting" beliefs, empowering parents as partners and advocates, and validating concerns. Although all functions seemed to interact, building relationships appeared to provide a relational context in which all other interpersonal communication occurred.

conclusionsParent interviews provided evidence for 8 distinct communication functions in pediatric oncology. Clinicians can use this framework to better understand and fulfill the communication needs of parents whose children have serious illness. Future work should be focused on measuring whether clinical teams are fulfilling these functions in various settings and developing interventions targeting these functions.

Indexed as

CommunicationMedical OncologyPediatricsAdultBereavementCancer SurvivorsDecision MakingDisclosureEmotionsEmpathyEmpowermentFamilyFemaleHopeHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID32820068
PMCPMC7461134

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.