ArticlePatient preference and adherence2021
Preferences in a Group of Patients with Cancer: A Grounded Theory.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of Positive Thinking Ideology on Physician Representations of Cancer.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Explanatory Model of Psychogenic, Behavioral and Environmental Causal Attributions of Cancer, and Their Psychogenic, Biomedical and Alternative Treatment in the General Population of Medellín, Colombia.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study was conducted to understand the preferences of patients with cancer in Medellin, Colombia.
methodsA qualitative approach based on the theoretical and methodological resources of the grounded theory was conducted. Between June 2020 and March 2021, patients over 18 years old with a confirmed diagnosis of cancer within the past 2 years treated in Medellin, Colombia, were selected. Theoretical saturation sampling was performed. Each participant was interviewed between 2 and 3 times in accordance with the open, axial, and selective coding of the grounded theory.
resultsA common preference set emerged in all patients related to the attributes of healthcare professionals and is a category that unites their scientific and humanistic aspects. On the other hand, very heterogeneous preferences were presented that were associated with the doctor-patient relationship and the therapeutic objectives. In the doctor-patient relationship, there are those who adhere to a paternalistic model and those who opt for an informative model. In therapeutic objectives, two subcategories emerged: those who are inclined to preserve life and those who accord more value to the quality of life.
conclusionThe categories that emerged illustrate the complexity and challenges of the preferences of patients with cancer in theoretical and experiential terms for social studies of medicine, philosophy, and bioethics. From medical social studies, it's emphasized that the experiences of dehumanization are constant, which generates shared preferences in the patients related to the ideal of the medical professional. From the philosophical perspective, the care received by patients coincides with what was called medicine for slaves in ancient Greece, insofar as patients are not assumed to be free subjects. With respect to bioethics, some ideas are raised contrary to the support of individual autonomy; relational autonomy and the respect for the person above the autonomy itself are advocated.
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.