ArticleJournal of pain and symptom management2024
Piloting a Patient Tool to Aid Palliative Care Referrals during Advanced Lung Cancer Treatment.
Article in Journal of pain and symptom management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Experiences With a Symptom Monitoring and Self-Referral Program for Specialty Palliative Care After Lung Cancer Diagnosis: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- An optimisation framework for resource allocation in palliative and end-of-life care.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
contextPatient misperceptions are a strong barrier to early palliative care discussions and referrals during advanced lung cancer treatment.
objectivesWe developed and tested the acceptability of a web-based patient-facing palliative care education and screening tool intended for use in a planned multilevel intervention (i.e., patient, clinician, system-level targets).
methodsWe elicited feedback from advanced lung cancer patients (n = 6), oncology and palliative care clinicians (n = 4), and a clinic administrator (n = 1) on the perceived relevance of the intervention. We then tested the prototype of a patient-facing tool for patient acceptability and preliminary effects on patient palliative care knowledge and motivation.
resultsPartners agreed that the intervention-clinician palliative care education and an electronic health record-integrated patient tool-is relevant and their feedback informed development of the patient prototype. Advanced stage lung cancer patients (n = 20; age 60 ± 9.8; 40% male; 70% with a technical degree or less) reviewed and rated the prototype on a five-point scale for acceptability (4.48 ± 0.55), appropriateness (4.37 ± 0.62), and feasibility (4.43 ± 0.59). After using the prototype, 75% were interested in using palliative care and 80% were more motivated to talk to their oncologist about it. Of patients who had or were at risk of having misperceptions about palliative care (e.g., conflating it with hospice), 100% no longer held the misperceptions after using the prototype.
conclusionThe palliative care education and screening tool is acceptable to patients and may address misperceptions and motivate palliative care discussions during treatment.
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.