Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38418235›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

What can patient-reported experience measures tell us about the variation in patients' experience of prostate cancer care? A cross-sectional study using survey data from the National Prostate Cancer Audit in England.

Melanie Morris, Adrian Cook, Joanna Dodkins, Derek Price, Steve Waller, Syreen Hassan, Arjun Nathan, Ajay Aggarwal, Heather Ann Payne, Noel Clarke and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Understanding experiences of optimal survivorship care: findings from a population-based study of cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Melanie MorrisClinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, London, UK melanie.morris@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3819-8107
Adrian CookClinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, London, UK.
Joanna DodkinsClinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7470-3014
Derek PriceDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Steve WallerClinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, London, UK.
Syreen HassanHealth Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London, UK.
Arjun NathanClinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, London, UK.
Ajay AggarwalHealth Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London, UK.
Heather Ann PayneConsultant Clinical Oncologist, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK.
Noel ClarkeClinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, London, UK.
Jan van der MeulenHealth Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9451-2335
Julie NossiterClinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, London, UK.
Royal College of Surgeons of England · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBImperial College London · GBUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA national survey aimed to measure how men with prostate cancer perceived their involvement in and decisions around their care immediately after diagnosis. This study aimed to describe any differences found by socio-demographic groups.

designCross-sectional study of men who were diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer.

settingThe National Prostate Cancer Audit patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) survey in England.

participantsMen diagnosed in 2014-2016, with non-metastatic prostate cancer, were surveyed. Responses from 32 796 men were individually linked to records from a national clinical audit and to administrative hospital data. Age, ethnicity, deprivation and disease risk classification were used to explore variation in responses to selected questions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to five questions from the PREMs survey: the proportion responding to the highest positive category was compared across the socio-demographic characteristics above.

resultsWhen adjusted for other factors, older men were less likely than men under the age of 60 to feel side effects had been explained in a way they could understand (men 80+: relative risk (RR)=0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00), that their views were considered (RR=0.79, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87) or that they were involved in decisions (RR=0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00). The latter was also apparent for men who were not white (black men: RR=0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; Asian men: RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) and, to a lesser extent, for more deprived men.

conclusionsThe observed discrepancies highlight the need for more focus on initiatives to improve the experience of ethnic minority patients and those older than 60 years. The findings also argue for further validation of discriminatory instruments to help cancer care providers fully understand the variation in the experience of their patients.

Indexed as

EthnicityProstatic NeoplasmsAgedCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMaleMinority GroupsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSurveys and QuestionnairesHealth Services AccessibilityONCOLOGYPatient-Centered CarePatients

Identifiers

PMID38418235
PMCPMC10910410
OpenAlexW4392300787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.