Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35106657›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022

Using patient experiences to evaluate care and expectations in lung cancer: analysis of the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey linked with the national cancer registry.

Yvonne Nartey, Laila J Tata, Aamir Khakwani, Vanessa Beattie, Paul Beckett, Richard B Hubbard, Iain Stewart

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Understanding experiences of optimal survivorship care: findings from a population-based study of cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Yvonne NarteyDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Laila J TataDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Aamir KhakwaniDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Vanessa BeattieAintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Paul BeckettUniversity Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.
Richard B HubbardDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Iain StewartDivision of Respiratory Medicine, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. iain.stewart@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1340-2688
University of Nottingham · GBUniversity Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIdentification of unmet needs in person centred and supportive care could be limited by differences in experience across specific cancer populations. Using the experiences of people with lung cancer, we assess distinctions according to demographic and clinical characteristics.

methodsThe English Cancer Patient Experience Survey was linked to the national cancer registry. The primary outcome was experience of the lung cancer pathway when assessed in multi-question models developed with item response theory. Secondary outcomes were experience by treatment received and in separate dimensions of the care pathway: up to diagnosis, treatment information, and staff support.

resultsResponses from 15,967 adults with a lung cancer diagnosis between 2009 and 2015 were included. Positive experiences were more likely to be reported by people aged between 65 and 80 (adjusted coefficient 0.08, 95%CI 0.05;0.11), those living in the most deprived areas (adjusted coefficient 0.10, 95%CI 0.05;0.14), diagnosed at lung cancer stage IIA-B (adjusted coefficient 0.09, 95%CI 0.04;0.14), and those diagnosed through inpatient elective admissions (adjusted coefficient 0.17, 95%CI 0.07;0.28). Specific experiences differed across dimensions of care and within lung cancer treatment groups.

conclusionsExperiences differed according to gender and ethnicity, supporting previous observations in cancer. In contrast to previous studies, people with lung cancer were more likely to report positive pathway experiences at older ages, living in more deprived areas, or diagnosed after stage I, all frequently associated with worse clinical outcomes. The distinct observations in lung cancer specific analyses suggest potential unmet needs, such as in early stage disease and younger age groups.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsMotivationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overHumansPatient Outcome AssessmentRegistriesSurveys and QuestionnairesEnglandItem responseLung cancerPatient experiencePatient reporting

Identifiers

PMID35106657
PMCPMC8942895
OpenAlexW4210505875

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.