Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33569673›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Parental views on communication between children and clinicians in pediatric oncology: a qualitative study.

Bryan A Sisk, Ginny L Schulz, Lindsay J Blazin, Justin N Baker, Jennifer W Mack, James M DuBois

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bryan A SiskDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, 4523 Clayton Avenue, Campus Box 8005, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. siskb@wustl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2456-2476
Ginny L SchulzDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, 4523 Clayton Avenue, Campus Box 8005, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Lindsay J BlazinDepartment of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.
Justin N BakerDepartment of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.
Jennifer W MackPediatric Oncology and Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
James M DuBoisDepartment of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Washington University in St. Louis · USSt. Jude Children's Research Hospital · USBoston Children's Hospital · US

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
Conquer Cancer Foundation Young Investigator AwardNCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCommunication is essential to providing family-centered care in pediatric oncology. Previously, we developed a functional model of communication between parents and clinicians. Prior research has not examined the domains and purposes of communication between children and clinicians. We explored parental perspectives to begin understanding this communication.

methodsSecondary analysis of semi-structured interviews with 80 parents of children with cancer across 3 academic medical centers during treatment, survivorship, or bereavement. We employed semantic content analysis, using the functional model of parental communication as an a priori framework.

resultsWe identified 6 distinct functions of communication in child-clinician interactions: building relationships, promoting patient engagement, addressing emotions, exchanging information, managing uncertainty, and fostering hope. These communication functions were identified by parents of older (> 13 years old) and younger (< 12 years old) children, although the specific manifestations sometimes differed by age. Notably, age was not always an indicator of the child's communication needs. For example, some parents noted older children who did not want to discuss difficult topics, whereas other parent described younger children who wanted to know every detail. Two functions from the previous parental model of communication were absent from this analysis: supporting family self-management and making decisions.

conclusionInterviews with 80 parents provided evidence for 6 distinct functions of communication between children and clinicians. These functions apply to older and younger children, although specific manifestations might vary by age. This functional model provides a framework to guide clinicians' communication efforts and future communication research.

Indexed as

CommunicationNeoplasmsAdolescentAdultBereavementChildFemaleHumansMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedParentsQualitative ResearchYoung AdultChildrenCommunicationPediatric oncologyPhysician-patient relationshipPsychosocial oncologySupportive oncology

Identifiers

PMID33569673
PMCPMC8295182
OpenAlexW3127762824

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.