ArticlePalliative & supportive care2025
Patient and caregiver experiences of palliative care co-management in oncology.
Article in Palliative & supportive care, 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.
- From reporting to relating: Reimagining ePROMs in cancer symptom management.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectivesHistorically, patients with cancer were referred to palliative care near the end of life. In recent years, the increased integration of palliative care throughout the entire trajectory of illness has helped patients with cancer better manage their symptoms and improve QOL. However, it is unknown how patients think about the presence and role of earlier, integrated palliative care. This study explored how patients and caregivers experience cancer care in the context of palliative care co-management with oncology.
methodsWe conducted interviews with 18 patients and 13 caregivers to investigate perspectives, attitudes, and experiences surrounding cancer care, specifically with their experiences of co-management with a palliative care outpatient clinic and oncology. Using grounded theory, we identified a typology of patient and caregiver approaches when discussing the care they received and/or desired.
resultsOur data revealed 3 approaches to thinking about palliative care in cancer care. While some participants embraced the "Cure Centrality" approach, caring only about fighting the disease, others adopted a "Quality-of-Life (QOL) Centrality" approach, desiring their health-care team to prioritize a broader range of concerns. A third approach, The "Dual Centrality" approach, espoused values from both approaches. SIGNIFICANCE OF
resultsWhile co-management of palliative care and oncology is complementary by design, our data suggest that patients and caregivers take a variety of approaches to their copresence. For some patients, palliative care served as an important legitimizing resource for patients desiring expanded priorities in their care (e.g. higher value on QOL and symptom management) and enabling patient-centered care.
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.