ArticlePloS one2024
Outcomes of prognostication in people living with advanced cancer: A qualitative study to inform a Core Outcome Set.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies of prognostication in advanced cancer use a wide range of outcomes and outcome measures, making it difficult to compare these studies and their findings. Core Outcome Sets facilitate comparability and standardisation between studies and would benefit future prognostic research. This qualitative study, the second step in a wider study developing such a Core Outcome Set, aimed to explore the perceptions and experiences of patients with advanced cancer, informal caregivers, and clinicians regarding the potential outcomes to assess the impact of prognostication.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with patients living with advanced cancer (n = 8), informal caregivers (n = 10), and clinicians (n = 10) recruited from palliative care services across three sites in London, United Kingdom. Interviews were conducted in-person, via telephone, or video conferencing, and were audio-recorded. Data were analysed using framework analysis. Findings were compared with outcomes identified in a previously published systematic review.
resultsWe identified 33 outcomes, 16 of which were not previously reported in the literature. We grouped these outcomes into 10 domains, nine from the COMET taxonomy, plus a tenth domain (spiritual/religious/existential functioning/wellbeing) which we added further to the previous systematic review. These findings highlighted discrepancies between the priorities of existing research and those of stakeholders. Novel outcomes highlight the more personal and emotional impacts of prognostication, whilst other outcomes confirm the relevance of survival length, depression, anxiety, pain, hope dynamics, emotional distress, and the quality of patient-clinician relationships for assessing the impact of prognostication.
conclusionsThis study offers valuable insights into outcomes which matter to key stakeholders, particularly patients and informal caregivers, highlights discrepancies between their priorities and those identified in previous studies, and underscores the need for a patient-centred approach in research and clinical practice in prognostication in advanced cancer. This work will contribute to developing a Core Outcome Set for assessing the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer.
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.