ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Adapting and Validating a Patient Prompt List to Assist Localized Prostate Cancer Patients with Treatment Decision Making.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesEffective communication between patients and healthcare providers is essential for informed decision making in cancer care. Communication aids that can help prostate cancer patients optimize their involvement in treatment care planning are not widely used in the U.S. This research details the adaptation and validation process of a patient prompt list for localized prostate cancer patients undergoing treatment decisions.
methodsThis process occurred in three steps: Step 1 involved gathering usable questions from the literature; in Step 2, we evaluated the tool's content via expert (N = 6) feedback; and in Step 3, we assessed the usefulness of the prompt list with patients (N = 30).
resultsSixty percent of candidate questions (20/33) were retained for inclusion after achieving acceptable item-level content validity index (range: 0.83-1.00) and scale-level content validity index (S-CVI = 0.96) scores. The final 20 questions were classified into 5 domains (1: Treatment Options and Information, 2: Side Effects, Risks, and Recovery, 3: Emotional and Social Support, 4: Logistical and Practical Concerns, and 5: Future Health Considerations) through a card sorting exercise with a subset of patients (N = 3) and providers (N = 2). Most patients rated the prompt list as "useful or very useful" both to themselves (80%, N = 24) and to other men presenting with prostate cancer (83%, N = 25).
conclusionsThe participatory process used to develop and validate the prompt list offers insights for the development of similar tools.
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.