Observational studyBMJ open2021
Is patient participation in multidisciplinary tumour conferences associated with their information needs? A multicentre prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patients' preferences in therapeutic decision-making in digestive oncology: a single centre cross-sectional observational study.Scientific reports · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the association between participation of patients with breast cancer and patients with gynaecological cancer in their own multidisciplinary tumour conference (MTC) and their information needs with regard to their disease and treatment options.
methodsThis is a prospective observational study that took place at six breast cancer and gynaecological cancer centres in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Patient inclusion criteria included a minimum age of 18 years and at least one diagnosis of breast cancer or gynaecological cancer. Three surveys were administered. T0 (shortly before MTC), T1 (directly after MTC) and T2 (4 weeks after MTC). Patient information needs were measured using two three-item subscales of the Cancer Patients Information Needs scale. Analysis of change was done by one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). To control for sampling bias, a further one-way repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included a propensity score as a covariate.
resultsData from 81 patients in the participation group and 120 patients in the non-participation group were analysed. The patient groups did not differ in their levels of information needs at T0 or T2. From T0 to T2, information needs increased statistically significantly in both groups with regard to both disease-related information (η²=0.354) and treatment-related information (η²=0.250). The increase in both types of information needs lost its statistical significance when the propensity score was included as a covariate. Neither ANOVA nor ANCOVA revealed a statistically significant association between patients' participation in the MTC and their self-reported information needs. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: As concerns patients' information needs, findings do not support a general recommendation for or against the participation of patients in their MTCs. Future research should focus on the different ways of patients' participation in their MTCs facilitated at different cancer centres. Further research should also aim to establish which patient and disease characteristics predispose patients to benefit from participating in their MTCs.
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.