ArticleEJHaem2021
Models of care for chronic myeloid leukemia patients during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: Changes in patient attitudes to remote consultations and future implications.
Article in EJHaem, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electronic patient-reported monitoring of symptoms during follow-up of ovarian cancer patients: a feasibility study.BMC cancer · 2022Trial
- 'It made me feel part of the team, having my homework to do' - women and specialist nurse experiences of remote follow-up after ovarian cancer treatment: a qualitative interview study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- 'We do need to keep some human touch'-Patient and clinician experiences of ovarian cancer follow-up and the potential for an electronic patient-reported outcome pathway: A qualitative interview study.European journal of cancer care · 2022Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the regular follow-up and outcomes of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic-phase.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has presented numerous challenges to the provision of patient care within hematology. We undertook a questionnaire-based study investigating the experiences and opinions of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in the UK in relation to the different models of follow-up care received during the pandemic. One hundred fifty-four patients completed the online questionnaire. Only 19% of patients had experienced remote clinics prior to the pandemic compared with 91% afterward. After having experience of remote clinics, the proportion of patients who were positive about the remote clinic concept increased from 34% to 52% (P < .05). However, when asked to compare their experiences with face to face versus remote clinics, 48% preferred face-to-face clinics compared with 17% preferring remote clinics (35% expressed no preference). During the pandemic, frequency of blood tests was unchanged for 71% of patients, although they were performed in a number of different locations. The majority of patients (57%) had medication delivered to their home, with a small number (8%) having difficulty obtaining their medication. In terms of future models of care, 72% of patients were in favor of building remote appointments into the clinic model with 61% expressing a preference for a mixture of remote and face-to-face appointments. There was also interest in greater utilization of primary care for blood testing. Our findings should help optimize future models of care for CML patients.
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.