ArticlePloS one2024
The experiences and decision making of patients with incurable cancer and health literacy difficulties.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07450950 (Evaluating Health Literacy, Expectations and Regrets in Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery for Malignant Disease), which is not on this 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.
Evaluating Health Literacy, Expectations and Regrets in Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery for Malignant Disease
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The "good cancer" paradox: Decisional conflict and unmet support needs in patients with thyroid cancer facing surgical decisions-A mixed-methods study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Development of a self-management behavior assessment scale for liver cancer patients from ethnic minorities.BMC health services research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveShared decision making is important when decisions are preference sensitive, as in incurable cancer. A prerequisite for shared decision making is health literacy, which is essential to facilitate good understanding of an individual's current situation, the decision to be made, and the options available to them. This study sought to learn about the challenges for shared decision making faced by patients with incurable cancer and health literacy difficulties.
methodsSemi-structured telephone and video interviews were used to collect data on participants' experiences, decision making, and challenges faced. Study procedures followed health literacy principles, with information offered in various formats to suit individuals' preferences, the use of a verbal consent process, and flexibility in whether interviews were conducted over telephone or video call. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis (Ritchie et al. 2003), with initial verbatim transcription of interviews, iterative development of the analysis framework, indexing using Nvivo 12 software and summarising of the data before systematic categorisation and development of final themes.
resultsTwenty participants (aged 31-80, of whom 13 male) with a variety of cancers (including breast, central nervous system, gastrointestinal, gynaecological, lung, head and neck, and urological) and experience of a range of treatments were interviewed. Seven themes were identified, including: supportive staff in an imperfect system, additional pressure from COVID-19, in the expert's hands, treatment not so bad, emotional hurdles, accessing information to further understanding and wanting to be a good patient.
conclusionIn order to support patients with incurable cancer and health literacy difficulties to become involved in decisions about their care, we must address the emotional, social and informational challenges they face. Recommendations for achieving this include addressing peoples' emotional needs, facilitating control over information, developing a partnership, involving others, and organisational changes.
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.