ArticlePloS one2025
Oncologists' views on ototoxicity monitoring in head and neck cancer patients: A South Indian qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe perspectives and practices of healthcare professionals regarding ototoxicity in individuals with head and neck cancers are important for the implementation of ototoxicity monitoring. The current study aims to explore the oncologist's awareness and perspectives of ototoxicity and ototoxicity monitoring for individuals with head and neck cancer in a South-Indian district, using qualitative semi-structured interviews.
methodThe COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) Checklist was used to guide the method of the current qualitative study. A conceptual framework was developed for the formulation of the interview guides. Three medical oncologists and six radiation oncologists from cancer care centres participated in the study. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was carried out using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach to present the findings under the respective overarching themes.
resultsAll oncologists are aware of the ototoxic effects caused by radiation therapy and chemoradiotherapy. It was consistently reported that the severity of the hearing loss was not substantial enough to warrant significant concern. Ototoxicity is not emphasized during the counseling process. All participants reported having awareness and knowledge of ototoxicity monitoring programs and understood their importance. However, none of them reported the implementation of an ototoxicity monitoring program in their facility. DISCUSSION: It is imperative to enhance the knowledge and understanding of the ototoxic nature of cancer treatment modalities among oncologists. It is crucial to raise awareness regarding the significance of ototoxicity monitoring programs among all physicians involved in the treatment of patients with cancer for maximum impact. The barriers to implementing ototoxicity monitoring programs in high- and low-income countries are similar. The models implemented in high-income countries can be adapted for use in low-middle income countries with suitable restructuring.
conclusionThe current study provides valuable insights into the status of ototoxicity monitoring in the South-Indian context. The findings align with the key components of the health belief model, including perceived susceptibility, perceived barriers, and cues to action. Involving oncologists in the planning phase of the ototoxicity monitoring programs can help tailor future research questions and solutions to improve quality of life, foster collaboration among healthcare professionals, and produce actionable outcomes that may influence policy on ototoxicity monitoring.
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.