Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37087438›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2023

An exploratory cross-sectional study of the effects of ongoing relationships with accompanying patients on cancer care experience, self-efficacy, and psychological distress.

Marie-Pascale Pomey, Monica Iliescu Nelea, Louise Normandin, Cécile Vialaron, Karine Bouchard, Marie-Andrée Côté, Maria Alejandra Rodriguez Duarte, Djahanchah Philip Ghadiri, Israël Fortin, Danielle Charpentier and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

23 authors.

Marie-Pascale PomeyInnovation Axis, Research Center of the Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal, (CHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada. marie-pascale.pomey@umontreal.ca.
Monica Iliescu NeleaInnovation Axis, Research Center of the Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal, (CHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada.
Louise NormandinInnovation Axis, Research Center of the Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal, (CHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada.
Cécile VialaronInnovation Axis, Research Center of the Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal, (CHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada.
Karine BouchardCentre Hospitalier Universitaire - CHU de Québec- Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.
Marie-Andrée CôtéInnovation Axis, Research Center of the Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal, (CHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada.
Maria Alejandra Rodriguez DuarteInnovation Axis, Research Center of the Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal, (CHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada.
Djahanchah Philip GhadiriHEC Montréal, Department of Management, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Israël FortinCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé Et Services Sociaux de L'Est-de-L'Île-de-Montréal, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Danielle CharpentierCentre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Mélanie Lavoie-TremblayFaculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Nicolas FernandezDepartment of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Antoine BoivinInnovation Axis, Research Center of the Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal, (CHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada.
Michel DorvalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire - CHU de Québec- Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.
Mado DesforgesInnovation Axis, Research Center of the Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal, (CHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada.
Catherine RégisUniversité de Montréal - Faculty of Law, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Isabelle GanacheInstitut National d'excellence en Santé Et Services Sociaux (INESSS), Montréal, QC, Canada.
Lynda BélangerCentre Hospitalier Universitaire - CHU de Québec- Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.
Zeev RosbergerGerald Bronfman Department of Oncology, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital &, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Michel Alain DaninoInnovation Axis, Research Center of the Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal, (CHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada.
Jean-François PelletierCentre Intégré de Santé Et de Services Sociaux de La Montérégie-Ouest, St-Hubert, QC, Canada.
Thi Trinh Thuc VuCentre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Michèle de GuiseInstitut National d'excellence en Santé Et Services Sociaux (INESSS), Montréal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCentre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal in Canada introduced accompanying patients (APs) into the breast cancer care trajectory. APs are patients who have been treated for breast cancer and have been integrated into the clinical team to expand the services offered to people affected by cancer. This study describes the profiles of the people who received the support and explores whether one-offs vs ongoing encounters with APs influence their experience of care, on self-efficacy in coping with cancer, and on their level of psychological distress.

methodsAn exploratory cross-sectional study was carried out among patients to compare patients who had one encounter with an AP (G1) with those who had had several encounters (G2). Five questionnaires were administered on socio-demographic characteristics, care pathway, evaluation of the support experience, self-efficacy in coping with cancer, and level of psychological distress. Logbooks, completed by the APs, determined the number of encounters. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the associations between the number of encounters, patient characteristics, care pathway, number of topics discussed, self-efficacy measures in coping with cancer, and level of psychological distress.

resultsBetween April 2020 and December 2021, 60% of 535 patients who were offered support from an AP accepted. Of these, one hundred and twenty-four patients participated in the study. The study aimed to recruit a minimum of 70 patients with the expectation of obtaining at least 50 participants, assuming a response rate of 70%. There were no differences between G1 and G2 in terms of sociodemographic data and care pathways. Statistical differences were found between G1 and G2 for impacts on and the return to daily life (p = 0.000), the return to the work and impacts on professional life (p = 0.044), announcement of a diagnosis to family and friends (p = 0.033), and strategies for living with treatment under the best conditions (p = 0.000). Significant differences were found on the topics of cancer (p = 0.000), genetic testing (p = 0.023), therapeutic options (p = 0.000), fatigue following treatment (p = 0.005), pain and discomfort after treatment or surgery (p = 0.000), potential emotions and their management (p = 0.000) and the decision-making processes (p = 0.011). A significant relationship was found between the two groups for patients' ability to cope with cancer (p = 0.038), and their level of psychological distress at different stages of the care pathway (p = 0.024).

conclusionsThis study shows differences between one-time and ongoing support for cancer patients. It highlights the potential for APs to help patients develop self-efficacy and cope with the challenges of cancer treatment.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsPsychological DistressAdaptation, PsychologicalCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansSelf EfficacyStress, PsychologicalSurveys and QuestionnairesAccompanying patientBreast cancerPatient advisorsPatient care experiencePatient partnership, oncologyPeer support

Identifiers

PMID37087438
PMCPMC10122087

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.