ArticleBMJ open quality2021
Users' evaluation of Japan's cancer information services: process, outcomes, satisfaction and independence.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Addressing cancer survivors' information needs and satisfaction: a systematic review of potential intervention components for survivors with a rare cancer type.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Reducing Hallucinations and Trade-Offs in Responses in Generative AI Chatbots for Cancer Information: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer information service (CIS) programmes are becoming increasingly important because patients need to obtain appropriate information and take an active role in their treatment decisions. Programme evaluation is required to determine the level of satisfaction and quality of experiences of users. The purpose of this study is (1) to identify users' evaluation of CIS programmes by both satisfaction and outcomes that reflect the quality of experience and impact of using the CIS, (2) to examine the related factors of these evaluation outcomes and (3) to analyse the differences of those relations between patients and families.
methodThe self-reported questionnaire was answered by 447 patients and 216 families of patients who used Cancer Information Support Centres (CISCs) at 16 designated cancer hospitals from January 2016 to April 2016. We developed 12 evaluation items, including satisfaction, experience and the impact of using CISC.
resultsRespondents evaluated the CISC highly, especially in terms of overall satisfaction, followed by the counselling process. Immediate access to CISC was the strongest factor affecting outcomes. Patients who wanted to consult about 'disease or symptoms' or 'had no specific problem' tended to provide high scores for some outcomes, but those who wanted to consult about a 'financial problem' or 'discharge or care at home' provided negative scores. These trends were also observed in families but to a more limited extent.
conclusionUsers' evaluation of CISCs was sufficiently high in terms of overall satisfaction, showing reasonable scores in outcome levels. Immediate access was the strongest factor affecting outcomes and topics of consultation more directly affected evaluation by patients than by families. The distribution of the scores of the measures and related factors was reasonable. The 12-item measurement tool employed in this study seems to be useful for quality monitoring of the CIS.
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.