ReviewPalliative care and social practice2022
Prognostic disclosure in cancer care: a systematic literature review.
Review in Palliative care and social practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Understanding the role of home-based palliative care in supporting patient dignity: a scoping review.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Case Report: Family-mediated prognostic non-disclosure and psychological deterioration in terminal cancer.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Shared decision-making in Cervical Cancer Care at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A mixed-methods study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Barriers to timely transitions to comfort care in cancer patients: a review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- A Model of Death Preparedness in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Grounded Theory Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Prognostic beliefs in patients with cancer receiving outpatient palliative care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Situations in which caregivers and patients are likely to collude: Perspectives from caregivers of advanced cancer patients in Bangladesh.Palliative & supportive care · 2025Article
- Conspiracy of Silence in Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis: A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Maladaptive coping styles moderate the relationship between information on cancer treatment and psychosocial symptoms: an Italian multicenter study.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- In-patient suicide after telephone delivery of bad news to a suspected COVID-19 patient: What could be done to improve communication quality?Health care science · 2023Article
- Barriers to home exercise for patients with Parkinson's disease: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Providing person-centered palliative care in conflict-affected populations in the Middle East: What matters to patients with advanced cancer and families including refugees?Frontiers in oncology · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Collusion in cancer care is the diplomatic concealment of information between a triad of the health care professional (HCP), patient, and caregiver. Free and expressive communication is determined by multiple factors, which establishes a healthy balance between 'patient-centric' and 'family-centric' decision making. The lack of a universal approach to prognostic disclosure techniques emphasizes the need for a systematic review of contemporary practice. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted till June 2020 using themes based on cancer, communication, prognostic disclosure, and collusion by using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Fifty-three studies involving 10,569 subjects were studied for their utility on prognostic disclosure using different communication methods and interfaces. Twenty-three studies used a face-to-face interview with subjects while in-person telephonic interviews were conducted in two studies, 16 studies implicated semi-structured questionnaires, and 6 studies mentioned the development of a new technique/tool for disclosure. The duration of a session for prognosis-disclosure ranged from 22 min to 1 h. The involvement of palliative care specialists and mental health professionals was limited during the disclosure of the prognosis. Conclusion: The findings of the review indicate that patients in cancer care are aware of their diagnosis and to a certain extent of prognosis despite nondisclosure by their family members and treating teams. This review emphasizes the assessment of 'disclosure wishes' among patients and caregivers in separate interviews rather than simply relying on one specific method of interviewing. The nonconfrontational approach and training among HCPs are of utmost importance to build therapeutic resilience among the treating team involved in cancer care. Since many factors such as family wishes, cultural dissonance, medical model, and patient perception could become barriers to prognostic disclosure, there is a need to develop a universal approach to prognostic disclosure and handling associated collusion.
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.