ArticleCancer medicine2023
First impressions: A prospective evaluation of patient-physician concordance and satisfaction following the initial medical oncology consultation.
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.
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.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Genomic Analysis Using Liquid Biopsy: Considerations for Pretest Counseling in UK Practice.JCO precision oncology · 2026Review
- Understanding Curability and Life Expectancy in Surgical Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Mixed Methods Analysis of Factors that Affect Views on Cancer Prognosis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- First impressions: A prospective evaluation of patient-physician concordance and satisfaction following the initial medical oncology consultation.Cancer medicine · 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
21 authors.
Funding
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
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.