ArticleCancer research and treatment2025
Which Chemotherapy-Related Terms Were Difficult for Cancer Patients, and Who Would Have the Most Difficulties?
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring the Perspectives of Lung Cancer Chemotherapy Patients on Self-Management: A Qualitative Interview Study Using the COM-B Model.Patient preference and adherence · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis cross-sectional study aimed to examine which chemotherapy (CTx) terms were most difficult to understand for cancer patients and identify vulnerable patient populations who might need extra support to understand the terms. Materials and Methods: We listed 56 CTx-related terms based on the experts' review, then 300 cancer patients and their caregivers completed a questionnaire that assessed literacy in CTx terms (LCT), functional health literacy, and empowerment. Descriptive analysis was performed to examine which CTx-related terms were most difficult for them. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with LCT level.
resultsOf the total 300 people, 162 (54.0%) were in the low-scoring group in LCT. Low-scoring group had a higher proportion of males, lower monthly income, and lived at the province, compared to the high scoring group. The participants tended to have difficulties in understanding terms related to blood count, risk of infection, and symptoms written in Sino-Korean. In the multivariable logistic regression, male participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48 to 4.62), those with no cancer-related information-seeking (aOR, 4.32; 95% CI, 1.75 to 12.33), and those with low empowerment (aOR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.83 to 5.23) were more likely to have a low level of LCT.
conclusionThere were still linguistic health literacy challenges faced by cancer patients and their caregivers, specifically in understanding chemotherapy-related terms. Minimizing medical jargon and Sino-Korean terms and empowering patients to be ready for treatment are necessary.
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.