ArticlePEC innovation2023
Prospective randomized pilot study of a novel patient-centered pathology report for colorectal polyps.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: US patients have increased access to their medical records, yet the information is not always understandable. To improve patient understanding, we tested a patient-centered pathology report (PCPR) containing results for recent colon cancer screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Methods: A pilot randomized trial assessed the impact of addition of the PCPR to a standard pathology report on knowledge accuracy, decisional self-efficacy and control, and therapeutic alliance. Results: 55 participants were enrolled; 20 participants in the intervention group and 24 controls completed follow-up. There was no significant difference in polyp knowledge between groups at baseline or 30-days, with similar confidence in understanding their diagnoses, decisional self-efficacy, and therapeutic alliance. Most participants receiving a PCPR felt that it helped them understand their diagnosis better and should always be provided with the standard pathology report. Conclusion: Although patient attitudes toward the PCPR were positive, receiving it did not significantly improve knowledge accuracy or measures of self-efficacy. Further iterations should be explored to communicate key knowledge about colorectal polyp results. Innovation: A stakeholder-driven approach to PCPR development facilitated construction of a personalized document that has potential to increase patient's understanding for their results and needed follow-up.
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.