ArticleJCO global oncology2024
Factors Associated With Default of Treatment and Follow-Up Among Patients With Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study From a Lower-Middle-Income Country.
Article in JCO global oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspective of females from a rural community in India toward the knowledge, screening, and treatment of breast and cervical cancer and preventive vaccination.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Multimodal treatment with Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for eyelid and periocular sebaceous gland carcinoma: Long-term outcomes.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDesirable outcomes during the treatment of patients with cancer require adherence to evaluation, treatment, and follow-up. This study aimed to evaluate the factors associated with default in patients with cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe included patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of cancer who defaulted during evaluation, treatment, and follow-up. All patients' detailed demographic and clinical data were recorded. Those lost to follow-up were interviewed telephonically. The factors associated with default were noted. Descriptive statistics were used to compute the demographic and clinical characteristics.
resultsIn total, 172 patients were included. Geriatric and female patients were 38.9% and 37.2%, respectively. Fifty-eight percent of the patients lived in rural areas, whereas 45.9% were illiterate. More than one third (34.3%) of the patients who defaulted received the curative-intent treatment, whereas 62.1% of patients had a good performance status immediately before default. The average distance traveled by the patients to reach the cancer facility was 143 ± 13.15 km. The most common reasons for default were the lack of social support, financial constraints, difficulty in commuting, and too sick to come in 45 (26.2%), 35 (20.3%), 28 (16.3%), and 23 (13.4%) patients, respectively. Twenty-nine (16.9%) patients reported more than one reason for default.
conclusionLack of social support, financial constraints, transportation barriers, and inadequate counseling by the health care provider serve as barriers to uninterrupted cancer care. These factors are often interrelated and can be attenuated by adopting the hub and spoke model. Simultaneously, a good relationship between the patient and the health care provider fostered by appropriate counseling is imperative to increase adherence to cancer treatment and improve the outcome.
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.