Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37384160›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2023

"Your cancer is no longer considered cancer": Psychological reactions to reclassification information and communication preferences.

Irina Mindlis, Mariska Kop, Marita S Teng, Tracey A Revenson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Irina MindlisPsychology, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.
Mariska KopPsychology Department, Hunter College, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.
Marita S TengDepartment of Otolaryngology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Tracey A RevensonPsychology, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: In 2016, the encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma (EFVPTC) was reclassified as noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP). This reclassification removed the word "carcinoma" and the definition of cancer from the diagnosis. While the nomenclature change was expected to psychologically impact patients, that question has not been systematically explored. Using qualitative methods, we aimed to explore the psychological impact of reclassification on thyroid cancer patients and their preferences for receiving reclassification information. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with nine non-EFVPTC thyroid cancer survivors were conducted. Participants were presented with a hypothetical reclassification scenario, and interview transcripts were analyzed using a thematic content analytic approach. Results: Participants expressed a range of psychological reactions to reclassification information, primarily negative, including anger, mistrust, and uncertainty, but also relief. All participants expressed difficulty understanding the concept of reclassification. Communication preferences favored conversation with an established medical provider over written materials, such as a letter. Discussion and conclusion: Communication must align with patient preferences. Being mindful of potential negative psychological reactions when providing information on cancer reclassification is vital. Innovation: This study examines reactions to cancer reclassification information and preferences for how this information should be communicated.

Indexed as

CancerCancer reclassificationPatient-provider communication

Identifiers

PMID37384160
PMCPMC10294108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.