Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38735892›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024

Parent and oncologist perspectives on prognostic disclosure in advanced childhood cancer: communication pearls and pitfalls.

Kristina Zalud, Griffin Collins, Justin N Baker, Jennifer W Mack, Erica C Kaye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

5 authors.

Kristina ZaludDepartment of Pediatrics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Griffin CollinsDepartment of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.
Justin N BakerDepartment of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.
Jennifer W MackDepartment of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Erica C KayeDepartment of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA. erica.kaye@stjude.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6522-3876

Funding

PROFESSIONAL ONCOLOGY EDUCATION PROGRAMR25CA023944 · NCI · ST. JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL · PI SUZANNE A. GRONEMEYER · 1986 to 2026
$8.3M
IMPROVING PROGNOSTIC COMMUNICATION IN PEDIATRIC CANCERK08CA266935 · NCI · ST. JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL · PI Erica Carmen Kaye · 2022 to 2026
$1.0M
NCI NIH HHS K08 CA266935NCI NIH HHS R25 CA023944
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFor children with advanced cancer and their families, communication about prognosis is critical. Unfortunately, data demonstrate that prognostic communication occurs infrequently and inconsistently across advancing illness. Prior to developing an intervention to improve prognostic communication, we aimed to (1) characterize parent and oncologist perspectives on "best" approaches for prognostic communication, and (2) explore similarities and differences between parent and oncologist perspectives.

methodsChildren with poor-prognosis solid tumors, their parents, and oncologists were followed prospectively for 24 months or until death. Matched semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents and oncologists 0-7 days after medical encounters at timepoints of disease progression or relapse. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to describe parent and oncologist impressions of communication quality.

resultsA total of 68 interviews were conducted following serial disease reevaluation encounters involving 13 parents and five oncologists. Nine main themes were identified as "best" approaches: (1) speaking with honesty and clarity, (2) leaving room for hope, (3) leaning into a long-standing relationship, (4) personalizing language, (5) empowering the patient and family, (6) collaborating with the multidisciplinary team, (7) providing anticipatory guidance, (8) setting the scene, and (9) creating a therapeutic space. Parents and oncologists generally agreed on themes related to helpful communication approaches, while parents more explicitly described communication pitfalls.

conclusionParents and oncologists described clear recommendations for helpful communication strategies and pitfalls to avoid during difficult prognostic disclosure. Future work should integrate patient perspectives in the design and testing of an intervention to improve prognostic communication in advanced childhood cancer.

Indexed as

CommunicationNeoplasmsOncologistsParentsAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMalePhysician-Patient RelationsProfessional-Family RelationsPrognosisProspective StudiesCancerCommunicationEducationPediatricPrognosisQuality

Identifiers

PMID38735892
PMCPMC11440926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.