ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023
Quality of breaking bad news to patients diagnosed with neoplasia of the uterine cervix.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- MEET & MAKE CleaR PROCESS: a new framework for sharing serious information.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Breaking Bad News: The Perspective and Experience of Women with Gynecological Cancer (Results of the NOGGO-Expression XX Survey).Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Supporting the global reduction of cervical cancer: challenges in colposcopy practice and training.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Communication with cancer patients: the perspective of caregivers versus non-caregivers in Iran.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLittle is known about the quality of receiving bad news (BN) for women diagnosed with cervical neoplasia. We evaluated adherence to the SPIKES protocol in three cohorts of women with different stages of the disease and treatment modalities. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe included women with cervical cancer who underwent radical vaginal trachelectomy (RVT group, n = 110), radical hysterectomy or chemo-radiation (HE/RCT group, n = 101), and women with CIN 3 treated by loop excision (CIN group, n = 108). We asked the participants about how they received the bad news delivery in reality and how they would envision an ideal communication process based on the main items of the SPIKES protocol. The participants filled out a questionnaire with 38 items of the Marburg Breaking Bad News (MABBAN) Scale representing the six SPIKES subscales.
resultsOnly 72% of all patients reported being satisfied with their BBN experience. The following factors were considered important by 90% of the patients: an undisturbed atmosphere, taking enough time, coherent explanation of the disease, and the possibility to ask questions. However, the reality of their experiences fell significantly short of their expectations. Asking about the patient's knowledge of the disease, addressing their concerns, allowing them to show emotions, providing clarity about the change in quality of life, informing them about alternative therapies, and involving them in further planning were also significantly lacking in the actual BBN encounters compared to the patients' preferences. The experience of RVT patients was more negative compared to the HE/RCT patients (p = 0.036). The CIN patients had an overall satisfactory impression (p < 0.0001).
conclusionThe process of breaking bad news in German women diagnosed with cervical neoplasia requires substantial improvement. The SPIKES protocol can be used as a guideline for enhancement but should be supplemented by incorporating a second consultation as the norm rather than the exception. Continuous monitoring and improvement of the quality of BBN is recommended for all oncologic institutions, utilizing the MABBAN questionnaire as a valuable tool.
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.