ArticleCureus2025
Bridging Communication Gaps in Oncology: Insights From a Questionnaire Among Internal Medicine and Intensive Care Physicians.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Assessing Oncology Content in the Canadian Internal Medicine Competence by Design Residency Curriculum.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Oncology has rapidly evolved over the past decades in terms of treatments and outcomes. However, it has also introduced challenges, particularly for non-oncologist physicians who, at some stage of the disease, encounter oncology patients. The increasing complexity of terminology, lack of updated knowledge, or insufficient training, along with other interdisciplinary communication barriers, can lead to less-informed clinical decisions, resulting in suboptimal treatment management. Objective This study aims to investigate knowledge and communication limitations with oncology among internal medicine and intensive care physicians to identify educational and operational gaps. Methods This was a quantitative study using a questionnaire administered to internal medicine and intensive care specialists and residents (third to fifth year) from three centers. Data was analyzed using SPSS software. Results A total of 91 responses were obtained (69 (75.8%) from internal medicine and 22 (24.2%) from intensive care), of which 76.9% (n=70) were specialists. Approximately 92.3% (n=84) reported daily or weekly contact with oncology patients. Fifty-eight percent (n=53) rated their knowledge of oncology terminology as "adequate," and 93.4% (n=85) disagreed that "first-line palliative treatment" and "first-line metastatic treatment" have the same meaning. The majority (72.5%, n=66) considered the terminology used to be "unclear," particularly in relation to prognosis. In 72.5% (n=66) of cases, respondents reported that clinical decisions could have been altered if more objective terminology had been used. More than 90% (more than n=82) supported the need for standardized oncology terminology and clinical summaries with prognostic information. Around 93.4% (n=85) stated that continuous education in oncology should be more accessible. Conclusions The study revealed significant gaps in communication and knowledge of oncology among non-oncologist physicians, highlighting the need for standardized terminology and greater accessibility to continuous education. These measures could improve oncology care and potentially influence health policies.
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.