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.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Ethical Foundations of Accompanying Patients: The Need for Institutionalization.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Implementation and evaluation of a peer-to-peer support program in oncology: study protocol for the PaRole Onco France model.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- Role, Resources, and Integration of Accompanying Patients in Oncology: A Qualitative Study from the Accompanying Patient's Perspective.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- From innovation to practice: factors influencing implementation of the PAROLE-Onco peer support program.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Transforming Cancer Diagnostics: The Emergence of Liquid Biopsy and Epigenetic Markers.MedComm · 2025Review
- Patient-partner support for breast cancer survivors: a cross-sectional comparative study assessing the effects on emotional distress, coping, perceived control, and perceived social support.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Towards a New Integrated Model for Taking Into Account the Experiential Knowledge of People With Chronic Diseases, Integrating Mediation, Therapeutic Education and Partnership: The Expanded Chronic Care Patient-Professional Partnership Model.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Review
- The black box of the relationship between breast cancer patients and accompanying patients: the accompanied patients' point of view.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Integrating accompanying patients into clinical oncology teams: limiting and facilitating factors.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.