ArticleBMC health services research2024
Awareness, use and perception of patient versions of clinical practice guidelines - a national cross-sectional survey among patients with a cancer diagnosis and healthcare providers.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- MyCODE: a prospective evaluation of lay-language molecular tumor board protocols in precision oncology.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Article
- Perceptions and Attitudes of People With Cancer and Diabetes Towards Patient Guidelines: A Mixed Methods Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate awareness, use, and perceptions of the patient guidelines (PGs) of the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO) and to explore general preferences regarding cancer information among patients and healthcare providers (HCPs).
methodsTwo cross-sectional surveys among patients with cancer (November 2020-May 2021) and among HCPs (April -June 2021) were set up as anonymised, self-administered, semi-structured online surveys, including open-ended questions. Data were analysed with descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis. Patients were recruited from national self-help organisations and certified cancer centres located all over Germany. HCPs were recruited from cancer centres, scientific medical societies and guideline groups.
resultsOf 816 participating patients, 45% were aware of the GGPO-PGs, while 55% of the 455 participating HCPs were aware of them. Of those aware of the GGPO-PGs, 65% of patients and 86% of HCPs perceived them as helpful, while 95% in both groups saw them as comprehensive. Seventy-five percent of patients and 85% of HCPs were satisfied with the GGPO-PGs, 22%/13% were partially satisfied, and 3%/2% were rather/not at all satisfied. In addition to self-help organisations, physicians and hospitals were perceived as central in distributing the GGPO-PGs. More patients (78%) than HCPs (56%) stated a preference for detailed information, although the wish for concise information - e.g. decision aids - was concurrently expressed by the majority of all participants. Thematic analysis showed that up-to-dateness, trustworthiness, and supportive messaging are important properties for PGs.
conclusionsHCPs found the GGPO-PGs helpful, but awareness was low, which suggests that dissemination should be improved. This is also true for patients; however, further research needs to be done to increase the helpfulness of PGs for patients. Oncological PGs seem to be needed in different formats according to patients' situational needs. Theory-driven research should investigate how to best frame patient information in a supportive way.
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.