ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024
Evaluating cancer patient-reported experience measures against health literacy best practices.
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 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-reported experiences and patient-reported experience measures in primary care, home care, and community settings. A scoping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Mapping methods and tools for measuring patient experience in oncology settings: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional study on patient-centered outpatient service quality in the county-level integrated health organization of Yuhuan, Zhejiang province of China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePositive patient experiences can lead to better adherence to cancer treatment and greater patient health outcomes. The primary aim of this descriptive study was to determine whether commonly used cancer PREMs have been developed according to health literacy best practices. The secondary and third aims were to examine the development of PREMs and to assess their comprehensiveness against principles of patient-centered care.
methodsTo assess adherence to best practice literacy principles regarding readability and understandability of commonly used cancer PREMs, three validated readability calculators and a validated instrument were utilized. To better understand how PREMs were developed, data about survey items, patient involvement, and expert consultation were collected. Finally, the Picker framework was used to evaluate the comprehensiveness of PREMs against principles of patient-centered care.
resultsThirty-five PREMs studies met inclusion criteria for the study. The mean reading grade level of cancer PREMs was 9.7 (SD = 0.75, range = 8.2-11.2) with best practice recommendation being a grade 6 reading grade level. Twenty-eight PREMs were rated on understandability, with a mean score of 74% (SD = 10.6, range = 46-93%, with optimal score of greater than 80%). The mean number of items across PREMs was 49 (SD = 31, range = 13-136). Recommendations for the number of items to include in a questionnaire is 25-30 items. Most PREMs (n = 33, 94.3%) asked ≥ 1 double-barreled question. All PREMs addressed ≥ 2 patient-centered care principles.
conclusionCancer PREMs included in this study did not meet evidence-informed thresholds for readability and understandability. As such, it is possible that there may be gaps in how we understand the care experiences of low health literacy populations. Future development of PREMs should engage patients with low health literacy to ensure their perspectives are accurately captured and that PREMs are designed to meet the needs of all patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39227513What 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.