ArticlePatient education and counseling2022
Physicians' use of plain language during discussions of prostate cancer clinical trials with patients.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Implementation of a clinical trial communication skills training workshop for oncology fellows: A mixed methods evaluation.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Metaphors in cancer care: Cultural insights from Spanish and Mexican physician-patient interactions.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Determinants of Doctor-Patient Communication in Terms of Patient Rights During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- "Your cancer is no longer considered cancer": Psychological reactions to reclassification information and communication preferences.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Preparing Patients to Communicate with Their Doctors About Clinical Trials as a Treatment Option: Impact of a Novel Video Intervention for Patients with a Blood Cancer and Their Caregivers.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study described physicians' use of plain language during patient-physician cancer clinical trial discussions.
methodsVideo-recorded clinical interactions and accompanying transcripts were taken from a larger study of communication and clinical trials (PACCT). Interactions (n = 25) were selected if they included invitations to participate in a clinical trial. We used descriptive, qualitative discourse analysis, a method that identifies language patterns at or above the sentence level. We first excerpted discussions of clinical trials, then identified instances of plain language within those discussions. Finally, we inductively coded those instances to describe physicians' plain language practices.
resultsThe analysis identified four plain language practices. Lexical simplification replaced medical terminology with simpler words. Patient-centered definition named, categorized, and explained complex medical terminology. Metaphor explained medical terminology by comparing it with known concepts. Finally, experience-focused description replaced medical terminology with descriptions of patients' potential physical experiences.
conclusionThese plain language practices hold promise as part of effective information exchange in discussions of cancer clinical trials. Testing is needed to identify patient preferences and the extent to which these practices address patient health literacy needs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Pending further testing, these plain language practices may be integrated into physician clinical trial and other communication training.
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.