ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Towards the Improvement of Patient Experience Evaluation Items for Patient-Centered Care in Head and Neck Cancer: A Qualitative Comparative Study.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Owing to long-term treatment, frequent consultations, and complications, the evaluation of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) must be improved. This study explored an opportunity for improving patient experience (PE) evaluation of patients with HNC to achieve a patient-centered, integrative evaluation model based on patient needs. The study comprised four phases: (1) a systematic literature review of PE factors for patient quality of life (QoL) and establishment of PE factor categories as a framework, (2) a review of current cancer or HNC PE evaluation tools, (3) identification of potential PE evaluation items based on patient needs by conducting user research, and (4) suggestion of integrative HNC PE evaluation items through expert validation. As a result, the 39 potential items were initially identified from the literature review and user research. After conducting two survey rounds with experts, 25 items were suggested as HNC PE evaluation items. These underscore the importance of highlighting the patient's participation, the medical staff's comprehensive information delivery, empathy, and collaborative communication, the hospital's support of communication channels, the medical environment for patient emotional support, the education program, and systematic patient satisfaction data management. PE evaluation items that consider the diverse perspectives of stakeholders involved in HNC treatment and factors of comprehensive PE will contribute to improving HNC patient-centered care (PCC).
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.