Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38063318›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2023

First impressions: A prospective evaluation of patient-physician concordance and satisfaction following the initial medical oncology consultation.

Yvonne Bach, Elan Panov, Osvaldo Espin-Garcia, Eric Chen, Monika Krzyzanowska, Grainne O'Kane, Malcolm Moore, Rebecca M Prince, Jennifer Knox, Robert Grant and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Evaluating the Feasibility of Educational Videos in a Medical Oncology Sarcoma Clinic to Improve Patient Knowledge and Satisfaction.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

21 authors.

Yvonne BachPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4722-5314
Elan PanovPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Osvaldo Espin-GarciaPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Eric ChenPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Monika KrzyzanowskaPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Grainne O'KanePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Malcolm MoorePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rebecca M PrincePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jennifer KnoxPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Robert GrantPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lucy X MaPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1407-0715
Michael J AllenPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lawson EngPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ekaterina KosyachkovaPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Thais Baccili Cury MegidPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Carly BarronPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Xin WangPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Marie-Philippe SaltielPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abdul Rehman Rehman FarooqPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5433-6245
Raymond W JangPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Elena ElimovaPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn especially significant event in the patient-oncologist relationship is the initial consultation, where many complex topics-diagnosis, treatment intent, and often, prognosis-are discussed in a relatively short period of time. This study aimed to measure patients' understanding of the information discussed during their first medical oncology visit and their satisfaction with the communication from medical oncologists.

methodsBetween January and August 2021, patients without prior systemic treatment of their gastrointestinal malignancy (GI) attending the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PMCC) were approached within 24 h of their initial consultation to complete a paper-based questionnaire assessing understanding of their disease (diagnosis, treatment plan/intent, and prognosis) and satisfaction with the consultation. Medical oncology physicians simultaneously completed a similar questionnaire about the information discussed at the initial visit. Matched patient-physician responses were compared to assess the degree of concordance.

resultsA total of 184 matched patient-physician surveys were completed. The concordance rates for understanding of diagnosis, treatment plan, treatment intent, and prognosis were 92.9%, 59.2%, 66.8%, and 59.8%, respectively. After adjusting for patient and physician variables, patients who reported treatment intent to be unclear at the time of the consultation were independently associated with lower satisfaction scores (global p = 0.014). There was no statistically significant association between patient satisfaction and whether prognosis was disclosed (p = 0.08).

conclusionAn in-depth conversation as to what treatment intent and prognosis means is reasonable during the initial medical oncology consultation to ensure patients and caregivers have a better understanding about their cancer.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPhysiciansCommunicationHumansMedical OncologyPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsReferral and ConsultationGastrointestinal neoplasmsmedical oncologypatient communicationprognosispsycho-oncology

Identifiers

PMID38063318
PMCPMC10757128

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.