Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34204701›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2021

Comparison of Patient-Reported Experience of Patients Receiving Radiotherapy Measured by Two Validated Surveys.

Abdulla Al-Rashdan, Linda Watson, Demetra Yannitsos, Siwei Qi, Petra Grendarova, Lisa Barbera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Satisfaction with radiotherapy care among cancer patients treated in Germany-secondary analysis of a large multicenter study.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Survey of experiences and barriers to dental care post-head and neck cancer in OraRad study participants.Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2023
    Article
  5. Art and digital technologies to support resilience during the oncological journey: The Art4ART project.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022
    Article
  6. 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.

Abdulla Al-RashdanTom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N-4N2, Canada.
Linda WatsonApplied Research and Patient Experience, Cancer Research and Analytics, Cancer Care Alberta-Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB T2S-3C3, Canada.
Demetra YannitsosTom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N-4N2, Canada.
Siwei QiApplied Research and Patient Experience, Cancer Research and Analytics, Cancer Care Alberta-Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB T2S-3C3, Canada.
Petra GrendarovaGrande Prairie Cancer Centre, Grande Prairie, AB T8V-2E8, Canada.
Lisa BarberaTom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N-4N2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8302-4117

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-reported experience is associated with improved patient safety and clinical outcomes. Quality improvement programs rely on validated patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) to design projects. This descriptive study compares the experience of cancer patients treated with radiation as recorded through the Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS) or as recorded through Your Voice Matters (YVM) between February and August 2019. Six questions were compared ("overall experience with care", "discussion of worries", "involvement in decisions", "trusting providers with confidential information", "providing family with information", and "knowing who to contact"). Positive experience scores were calculated by cohort and by tumor groups. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated factors associated with positive experience. Two cohorts (220 and 200 patients) met the eligibility criteria for the AOPSS and YVM, respectively. Positive experience was reported similarly between the two PREMs for "overall experience with care", "discussion of worries", and "trusting providers with confidential information" with a score difference of 1-4% at the cohort level. Positive experience score difference ranged from 5% to 44% across questions at the tumor group level. Different experience gaps were identified with the two measures, mainly at the tumor group level. Programs interested in using these PREMS might consider this when designing projects.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesPatient SatisfactionHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality ImprovementSurveys and Questionnairesambulatoryambulatory oncology patient satisfaction surveyAOPSScancerpatient-centred carepatient-reported experienceperson-centred careYour Voice MattersYVM oncology

Identifiers

PMID34204701
PMCPMC8293109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.