Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33595717›Full record

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

Impact of consultation recordings on patient-reported outcomes in patients with brain tumors: a parallel randomized controlled trial.

Thomas F Hack, J Dean Ruether, Marshall Pitz, Brian Thiessen, Lesley F Degner, Dan Chateau

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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. It is linked to trial NCT01866228 (Impact of Treatment Consultation Recordings on Cancer Patient Outcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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.

NCT01866228 nacompletednot on this map

Impact of Treatment Consultation Recordings on Cancer Patient Outcomes: A Prospective, Parallel, Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of ManitobaRan2013 to 2017Enrolled140ConditionsBrain Tumor, Neuroendocrine CancerArmsConsultation Recording
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 5 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas F HackCollege of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. thack@sbrc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6913-8732
J Dean RuetherTom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Marshall PitzResearch Institute in Oncology and Hematology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Brian ThiessenDepartment of Medical Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Lesley F DegnerCollege of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Dan ChateauRady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
University of Manitoba · CABC Cancer Agency · CACancerCare Manitoba · CASt. Boniface Hospital · CAUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

CIHR 126049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe aimed to determine the impact of a primary treatment consultation recording on perception of being informed, satisfaction with cancer care, satisfaction with the oncologist, and psychological distress in patients with brain tumors.

methodsThis was a prospective, double-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial conducted in 3 Canadian cities, in which patients who had their initial treatment consultation recorded were assigned to either receive their digital recording or not. It was hypothesized that patients who received their recording would realize statistically significant benefit on the outcomes of interest at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months post-consultation in comparison to patients who did not receive their recording. Outcome measures included the following: Patient Satisfaction with Cancer Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, PrestMan Satisfaction with Doctor Scale, and Perception of Being Informed Scale.

resultsOf the 246 eligible patients, 133 participated (60.9% male; age M=52.4 years; 53.4% grade IV disease). Of these, 63 received their consultation recording and 70 did not. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that, compared to baseline, patients who received their consultation recording reported being more fully informed about their disease and treatment at 1 week post-consultation than patients who did not receive their recording (p = 0.007), but this finding was no longer significant at 3 and 6 months. There were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups on the measures of satisfaction with cancer care, satisfaction with the doctor, and depression or anxiety at any assessment time point, though the study was under-powered.

conclusionThe study findings show that primary treatment consultation recordings may provide limited benefit beyond brain tumor patients' perception of being informed, despite being highly valued by these patients, and high listening rates among their significant others. The lack of statistical power should be considered when interpreting the findings.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov - NCT01866228.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsReferral and ConsultationCanadaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresProspective StudiesBrain tumorsCancerCommunicationConsultation recordingOncology

Identifiers

PMID33595717
OpenAlexW3131359609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.