Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36230548›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Communication Tools Used in Cancer Communication with Children: A Scoping Review.

Noyuri Yamaji, Daichi Suzuki, Maiko Suto, Kiriko Sasayama, Erika Ota

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Predictive value of the Cancer and Aging Research Group Score for chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Noyuri YamajiGlobal Health Nursing, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke's International University, 10-1 Akashi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0044, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4212-6723
Daichi SuzukiDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Kanagawa Institute of Technology, 1030 Shimo-ogino, Atsugi 243-0292, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5294-8536
Maiko SutoDepartment of Health Policy, National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 157-8535, Japan.
Kiriko SasayamaGlobal Health Nursing, International University of Health and Welfare, 4-3 Kozunomori, Narita, Chiba 286-8686, Japan.
Erika OtaGlobal Health Nursing, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke's International University, 10-1 Akashi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0044, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough communication tools might guide healthcare professionals in communicating with children about cancer, it is unclear what kind of tools are used. This scoping review aimed to map the communication tools used in cancer communication among children with cancer, families, and healthcare professionals.

methodsA comprehensive search using PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL was conducted on 1 August 2021. We mapped communication tools and their impacts.

resultsWe included 25 studies (9 experimental studies and 16 feasibility studies) of 29 reports and found 21 communication tools. There was a lack of communication tools that were (1) accessible and validated, (2) designed for healthcare professionals, (3) targeted children, families, and healthcare professionals, and (4) were designed to meet the needs of children and families. Experimental studies showed that the communication tools improved children's knowledge and psychological outcomes (e.g., health locus of control, quality of life, self-efficacy).

conclusionWe mapped communication tools and identified areas that needed further research, including a lack of tools to guide healthcare professionals and share information with children and families. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate these communication tools. Moreover, it is necessary to investigate how communication tools support children, families, and healthcare professionals.

Indexed as

cancerchildrencommunicationcommunication toolsscoping review

Identifiers

PMID36230548
PMCPMC9563078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.