ArticlePloS one2024
Information preferences of patients with chronic blood cancer: A qualitative investigation.
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 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.
- Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement within a UK blood cancer cohort: a case study.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Living with chronic kidney disease: future perspectives and prognostic needs of patients - a qualitative study.BMC nephrology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHaematological malignancies (blood cancers) often follow chronic trajectories that can span many months or years. Management of these diseases typically involves periods of 'Watch & Wait', whereby patients are monitored by the hospital and only treated at progression, if or when this occurs, which might be never or on multiple occasions. Such remitting-relapsing pathways are unpredictable and can cause anxiety and distress. This study aimed to generate evidence about information preferences, with a view to underpinning future patient-facing resources; potentially mitigating psycho-social difficulties and promoting effective shared decision-making.
methodsA qualitative study was conducted, set within a UK population-based cohort of patients with haematological malignancies. Sampling was purposive, based on age (initially around the median age of diagnosis) and disease subtype (chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma and myeloma); and in-depth interviews took place with 35 patients (10 with relatives). Analysis drew on qualitative description and thematic content analysis and included critical reading and annotation of transcripts, identification of common and rare phenomena, generation of codes and coding of material, and theme development.
resultsPatients discussed their preferences and experiences at length and rich data were generated from diagnosis onwards, across diagnostic subtypes. The overarching theme identified was 'Variations in preferences' with needs seen to differ from person to person; as well as changing over time for individuals. Five sub-themes were identified: 1) To know or not to know? 2) Needs are dynamic; 3) The polarising issue of prognosis; 4) Preferred sources; and 5) Differences in content, depth and presentation.
conclusionsVaried, dynamic information preferences indicate that resources should be developed in a way that provides maximum choice, enabling patients to select relevant material at different time-points on their trajectory. The development of blood cancer subtype-specific "real-world clinical scenarios" could improve patient experiences and inform shared decision-making.
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.