ArticleHealth psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association2022
Association of quantitative information and patient knowledge about prostate cancer outcomes.
Article in Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2022. 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.
- Article
- AI-Generated Content in Cancer Symptom Management: A Comparative Analysis Between ChatGPT and NCCN.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2024Article
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
Abstract
objectiveWhen the volume or complexity of health information exceeds the capacity to process it, patients may misinterpret or ignore critical information. Numerical information is especially challenging to process for many patients, yet no empirical data shows whether numerical information influences how well they could process and recall it.
methodUsing natural language processing tools, we estimated the amount of numerical and probability-related (quantitative) information that was provided in 112 paired urology-radiology clinical consultations with patients who had been recently diagnosed with prostate cancer. The primary outcome measured was patient knowledge about their prostate cancer outcomes assessed before and after the consultations.
resultsPatients with prostate cancer, Gleason score 6 or 7, and stage Time 1 or Time 2 participated in the study. Paired consultations included on average 11,086 words spoken. The relationship between quantitative information provided in consultations and patient knowledge about their cancer outcomes followed an inverted U-shape. There was a positive association between quantitative information and patient knowledge about their cancer outcomes. However, after the amount of quantitative information exceeded 4% (422 quantitative words) in paired consultations, the relationships between knowledge and the number of quantitative words became negative. Individual differences in education were not associated with observed relationships.
conclusionDespite concerns about patients' capacity to process quantitative information, we found that patients' knowledge about cancer risks is positively associated with a certain amount of quantitative information. In the consultations, patients need to receive quantitative information that is well balanced with qualitative explanations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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.