ArticlePloS one2023
Head and neck cancer treatment outcome priorities: A multi-perspective concept mapping study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Patient Expectations and Preferences Following OPHL: Results from an Evaluation Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Using co-design to identify healthcare priorities for patients with incurable head and neck cancer.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Mechanistic insights into Aloin-mediated regulation of STAT3/SLC7A11 signaling in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Cytotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the increasing focus on patient-centred care, this study sought to understand priorities considered by patients and healthcare providers from their experience with head and neck cancer treatment, and to compare how patients' priorities compare to healthcare providers' priorities. Group concept mapping was used to actively identify priorities from participants (patients and healthcare providers) in two phases. In phase one, participants brainstormed statements reflecting considerations related to their experience with head and neck cancer treatment. In phase two, statements were sorted based on their similarity in theme and rated in terms of their priority. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis were performed to produce multidimensional maps to visualize the findings. Two-hundred fifty statements were generated by participants in the brainstorming phase, finalized to 94 statements that were included in phase two. From the sorting activity, a two-dimensional map with stress value of 0.2213 was generated, and eight clusters were created to encompass all statements. Timely care, education, and person-centred care were the highest rated priorities for patients and healthcare providers. Overall, there was a strong correlation between patient and healthcare providers' ratings (r = 0.80). Our findings support the complexity of the treatment planning process in head and neck cancer, evident by the complex maps and highly interconnected statements related to the experience of treatment. Implications for improving the quality of care delivered and care experience of head and cancer are discussed.
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.