ArticleMedicine and pharmacy reports2024
Impact of assessing the emotional health status in the management of cancer patients.
Article in Medicine and pharmacy reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: This study explores the impact of emotional health on cancer patients, acknowledging the controversies and lack of high-quality data in the field, particularly for rare cancers and younger patients. It highlights the significant prevalence of depression and anxiety among cancer patients, the inadequacies in addressing mental health during and after treatment, and the inconsistencies in prevalence rates due to varying study methodologies. This study unravels the importance of data regarding mental health status in a clinical dataset to accompany the biological sample to be included in a biobank. Methods: The study utilized a questionnaire to evaluate the opinions of cancer patients, clinicians, and researchers regarding the inclusion of mental health data in clinical datasets accompanying biological samples in biobanks. The study involved 120 participants (40 from each group), and the data were analyzed using statistical methods. Results: The study found significant differences in the perceived importance of including mental health information among the three groups. Patients showed a higher tendency (87.9%) to consider mental health questions relevant compared to researchers (72.08%) and clinicians (62.08%). The first four questions regarding emotional well-being received the highest positive responses, particularly from patients (94.3%). The findings underline the importance of addressing the mental health of cancer patients, which is often overlooked. The study emphasizes the necessity for integrating mental health data in biobanks and increasing psychological support for cancer patients. Conclusions: There are clear differences in how patients, researchers, and clinicians value emotional and psychological aspects. The study underscores the need for better education on modern medical practices and the benefits of comprehensive patient care, including mental health considerations.
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.