ArticlePloS one2025
Information usefulness of public disclosure in Taiwan: Does it vary across specific diseases/conditions and contexts?
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study discusses issues regarding tailored information for report cards, including what kinds of information patients with different diseases need and how the necessary information changes for these patients given alterations to a specific context. This study aimed to determine whether there is consistent, essential quality information across different diseases and in diverse contexts. The priority of needs related to interpersonal and technical quality information for different diseases is also discussed.
methodsFifty-five patients from 5 hospitals in Taiwan were interviewed or invited to participate in a focus group. Patients were diagnosed with five different diseases or conditions: stroke, dialysis, AMI, diabetes, and knee problems. We conducted in-depth interviews to identify the most requested types of information for every disease or condition in general and in different contexts (e.g., relocation). We applied the Kano model to verify the relative priority of the information that emerged from the interviews for each disease.
resultsThe 3 most requested types of information among patients with various diseases or conditions in the general context were medical professionalism, physician communication skills, and accessibility. Only a few types of information were valued by patients with specific diseases. In addition, patients focused on specific and mutually relevant information in certain contexts (e.g., in the context of conflict with physicians, patients considered communication skills most important). This information was similar to the 3 most common types of information in the general context regardless of the disease, with the exception of stroke. Finally, technical quality information was treated as basic or necessary information. However, most important information was treated as expected information regardless of the disease.
conclusionsThere is somewhat consistent essential quality information across different diseases and diverse contexts. According to the results of the Kano model, the report card should disclose interpersonal and technical quality simultaneously.
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.