ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2021
Understanding quality and equity: patient experiences with care in older adults diagnosed with hematologic malignancies.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Living with or beyond lymphoma: A rapid review of the unmet needs of lymphoma survivors.Psycho-oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Development and application of patient-reported experience measures for cancer patients: a scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Review
- Big Data in Oncology Nursing Research: State of the Science.Seminars in oncology nursing · 2023Review
- Patient preferences and choices as a reflection of trust-A cluster analysis comparing postsurgical perceptions in a private and a public hospital.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Factors influencing cancer patients' experiences of care in the USA, United Kingdom, and Canada: A systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOncology settings increasingly use patient experience data to evaluate clinical performance. Given that older patients with hematologic malignancies are a high-risk population, this study examined factors associated with patient-reported health care experiences during the first year of their cancer diagnosis.
methodsCross-sectional study using the 2000-2015 SEER-CAHPS® data to examine patient experiences of Medicare enrollees with a primary diagnosis of leukemia or lymphoma. The primary outcomes were three CAHPS assessments: overall care, personal doctor, and health plan overall. We estimated case-mix adjusted and fully adjusted associations between factors (i.e., clinical and sociodemographic) and the CAHPS outcomes using bivariate statistical tests and multiple linear regression.
resultsThe final sample included 1,151 patients, with 431 diagnosed with leukemia and 720 diagnosed with lymphoma (median time from diagnosis to survey 6 months). Patients who completed the survey further apart from the diagnosis date reported significantly higher adjusted ratings of care overall (β .39, p = .008) than those closer to diagnosis. American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had lower adjusted ratings of care overall (β - .73, p = .003) than Non-Hispanic white patients. Multimorbidity was significantly associated with higher adjusted personal doctor ratings (β .26, p = .003).
conclusionsUnfavorable patient experiences among older adults diagnosed with hematologic malignancies warrant targeted efforts to measure and improve care quality. Future measurement of experiences of cancer care soon after diagnosis, coupled with careful sampling of high-priority populations, will inform oncology leaders and clinicians on strategies to improve care for high-risk, high-cost populations.
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.