ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022
General versus disease-specific health literacy in patients with breast cancer: a cross-sectional study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Latent profile analysis of health literacy among breast cancer patients and comparative analysis of quality of life disparities.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Knowledge Gaps in Patients Undergoing Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration BiopsyEndocrine, metabolic & immune disorders drug targets · 2026Article
- Posttraumatic Stress and Opioid Use and Pain among Individuals with Probable Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Self-Reported Chronic Pain: The Role of Health Literacy.Substance use & misuse · 2024Article
- Assessment Tools for Measuring Health Literacy and Digital Health Literacy in a Hospital Setting: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health literacy is recognized as a critical factor affecting communication across the continuum of cancer care and plays a key role in patients' ability to meaningfully discuss their condition with healthcare providers. However, there is no consensus on the best approach to measure health literacy in clinical practice. The aims of this study were to compare general and disease-specific measurements of health literacy in patients with breast cancer as well as examine their relationships with patient-provider communication. During office visits, patients with HER-2 + breast cancer who received care at oncology clinics with value-based models of care completed a survey including the 6-item cancer health literacy tool (CHLT-6), 6-item newest vital sign (NVS), 2 items measuring difficulty of patient-provider communication, and 11 demographic/clinical items. The mean age of 146 participants was 57.1 ± 10.8 years. Most participants had adequate general health literacy as measured by the NVS (79%) and a high probability of adequate cancer health literacy (≥ 0.7) as measured by the CHLT-6 (92%). Most patients easily communicated with healthcare providers (90.2%) and understood information they provided (83.5%). However, there was no significant relationship between patient-provider communication and health literacy. Both the CHLT-6 and NVS may be useful tools to assess the health literacy of patients with cancer in clinical practice. Study findings of adequate health literacy and ease of communication might have been influenced by the value-based care models adopted by participating clinics. Further research in more diverse samples of patients with cancer and different types of oncology practice settings is warranted.
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.