ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2022
Evaluation of an online tool about the expected course of disease for glioblastoma patients-A qualitative study.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Shared decision-making interventions in neuro-oncology practice: a systematic review.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with glioblastoma have a short life-expectancy, with median survival rates of 9 to 12 months. Providing information about the expected course of the disease can be complicated. Therefore, an online tool has been developed. The objective of this tool is to better inform patients and proxies, and decrease their uncertainties and improve their quality of life. This study aims to gather experiences of an initial cohort of patient-proxy dyads, to identify if the tool meets the previously mentioned objectives. Methods: This is a qualitative study based on thematic analysis. Interviews were conducted with 15 patient-proxy dyads. For these interviews, a combined method of think-aloud sessions and semi-structured interviews were used. Audiotapes of these interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed. Results: The analysis revealed four major themes, namely, unmet information needs, improvement possibilities, effects of the tool and clinical implementation. Participants indicated that this tool could decrease uncertainties and increase their perceived quality of life. Also, they often mentioned that it could have a positive effect on the efficiency and quality of consultations. Conclusion: Participants considered this tool to be useful and effective in decreasing uncertainties for both patients with glioblastoma and their proxies. Moreover, participants brought up that this tool could positively influence the efficiency and quality of consultations. This could lead to more patient participation and empowerment, and could therefore enhance shared decision making and timely advanced care planning.
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.