SynthesisPsycho-oncology2025
Communication Interventions Targeting Both Patients and Clinicians in Oncology: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Psycho-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Pilot Study of a Primary Palliative Care Communication Intervention (PRECURSOR) to Address Supportive Oncology Needs for Patients With Incurable Cancer and Their Caregivers in the Outpatient Oncology Setting.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterTrial
- Educational and Professional Development Interventions to Strengthen Empathy, Compassion, and Relational Care Among Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2026Review
- Evaluating the accuracy and communication quality of large language models in Ewing sarcoma: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Grok.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHigh quality communication between individuals with cancer and their clinicians is a cornerstone of patient-centered oncology practice. Many communication skills training interventions have been evaluated to support either oncology clinicians or patients. However, there is little information regarding the scope and efficacy of combined communication interventions in oncology, or communication interventions targeting both patients and clinicians.
aimsTo systematically examine randomized controlled trials of combined communication interventions in oncology settings.
methodsFour databases (Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched using strategies developed by an expert librarian. All years were searched through May 2024. We followed PRISMA guidelines for reporting and used the Risk of Bias 2.0 assessment tool.
resultsThe search yielded 3983 records. We assessed 52 full text articles, 13 of which were eligible (8 describing cluster randomized controlled trials, 5 describing individual randomized controlled trials). Results indicate that combined communication interventions may increase patient-centered communication in oncology settings but may be less effective in improving patient care and related outcomes.
conclusionsCombined communication interventions in oncology settings and the outcomes measured to evaluate them are heterogeneous. This makes it difficult to determine the efficacy of combined communication interventions, the mechanisms by which these interventions improve patient-clinician communication as well as patient care and related outcomes, and which outcomes are most likely to be improved. Future work should clarify key targets of change for combined communication interventions and outcomes expected to be associated with patient-focused and clinician-focused intervention components.
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.