ArticleJCO oncology practice2023
The New Oncologic Diagnosis Discussion: Perspectives of Pediatric Oncologists.
Article in JCO oncology practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on disclosure of diagnosis and related issues in childhood cancer: A mixed methods systematic review.International journal of nursing sciences · 2026Review
- Peds OncoTalk: A Curriculum to Teach Communication Skills to Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Fellows.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2025Article
- Social Determinants of Health and Informed Consent Comprehension for Pediatric Cancer Clinical Trials.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- The Day One Talk, 20 Years Later: What Have We Learned?JCO oncology practice · 2023Article
- Talking with adolescent and young adult cancer survivors about health after cancer: A review and communication guide for clinicians.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to understand how new diagnosis discussions are conducted in pediatric oncology, and the training provided for their conduct.
methodsThis mixed-methods study used a sequential exploratory design. Qualitative interviews (n = 20) were conducted with pediatric oncologists (n = 15) and fellows (n = 5) at a single institution, focusing on the process used to convey the diagnosis and treatment plan to the family. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited pediatric oncology fellowship program directors (n = 38) and fellows (n = 70) were subsequently surveyed to confirm qualitative results and elucidate the training that fellows receive in conducting new diagnosis discussions.
resultsOur findings suggest that new diagnosis discussions in pediatric oncology are typically conducted in three stages: (1) concern for cancer; (2) confirmation of diagnosis; and (3) treatment plan/consent, and are fundamentally similar across settings; however, pediatric oncologists skillfully tailor their approach on the basis of clinical circumstances and parental needs. Decisions regarding inclusion of the child are primarily determined by parental preference, whereas inclusion of health care team members is driven by physician role (ie, trainee
conclusionWe identified common practices of pediatric oncologists as they prepare for and lead new diagnosis discussions in pediatric oncology. We found variability in the training that pediatric oncology fellows receive regarding how to conduct these discussions, highlighting a need for standardized training curricula.
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.