ArticlePatient preference and adherence2021
New Approach for Collecting Cancer Patients' Views and Preferences Through Medical Staff.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Utility of Integrated Multidisciplinary Patient-Centered Information in Breast Cancer Care: A Mixed Methods Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Integrated Electronic Health Record of Multidisciplinary Professionals Throughout the Cancer Care Pathway: A Pilot Study Exploring Patient-Centered Information in Breast Cancer Patients.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Analysis of the status and content of consultations with a Cancer Consultation and Support Centre during the COVID-19 pandemic.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Review
- Creation and provision of a question and answer resource for esophageal cancer based on medical professionals' reports of patients' and families' views and preferences.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIt is crucial for health professionals to understand patients' and families' views and preferences (PVPs) to enhance their adherence to treatments and subsequent satisfaction. Regularly and consistently collecting comprehensive information on the needs and concerns of patients/families and utilizing the information is vital for improving clinical practice and the healthcare environment. As an initial approach, this study aimed to develop a new system for appropriately collecting PVPs regarding cancer from nationwide medical staff and consider the potential utilization of PVPs in clinical practice.
methodsWeb-based anonymous surveys were conducted with medical staff in nationwide cancer care hospitals in Japan. The surveys queried the questions, values, desires, and experiences expressed by cancer patients or their families on five topics, namely two cancer sites (colorectal and esophageal cancers) and three symptoms and signs (lymphedema, urinary symptoms, and tingling/numbness/pain) within the past year. The PVPs were compared to the five topics and staff medical specialties, and those on tingling/numbness/pain were analyzed qualitatively.
resultsAmong the 904 medical staff who responded to this survey, the PVPs encountered by the staff differed according to the topic and staff medical specialty. Tingling/numbness/pain was the most frequently encountered symptom, and urinary symptoms were the least encountered. Only half or fewer of the medical staff had information available regarding urinary symptoms and tingling/numbness/pain. Further, qualitative content analysis of the expressed PVPs regarding tingling/numbness/pain raised clinical questions on this topic that led to the construction of a "Questions & Answers" section on a public website in Japan.
conclusionThis study suggests that collecting PVPs through nationwide cancer-related medical staff might be an efficient way to understand the specific requirements of patients/families. It would also be possible to document PVP trends according to changes in the environments of patients/families by nationwide, consistent, and continuous PVP collection.
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.