Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2025
Urologists' Estimation of Online Support Group Utilization Behavior of Their Patients With Newly Diagnosed Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Germany: Predefined Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 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.
- Living with knowledge gap and psychological burdens: understanding the attitudes, barriers, and support needs for pulmonary rehabilitation among oral and maxillofacial cancer patients in China.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to its high incidence, prostate cancer (PC) imposes a burden on Western societies. Individualized treatment decision for nonmetastatic PC (eg, surgery, radiation, focal therapy, active surveillance, watchful waiting) is challenging. The range of options might make affected persons seek peer-to-peer counseling. Besides traditional face-to-face support groups (F2FGs), online support groups (OSGs) became important, especially during COVID-19.
objectiveThis study aims to investigate utilization behavior and physician advice concerning F2FGs and OSGs for patients with newly diagnosed PC. We hypothesized greater importance of OSGs to support treatment decisions. We assumed that this form of peer-to-peer support is underestimated by the treating physicians. We also considered the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial comparing an online decision aid versus a printed brochure for patients with nonmetastatic PC. We investigated 687 patients from 116 urological practices throughout Germany before primary treatment. Of these, 308 were included before and 379 during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the 1-year follow-up visit, patients filled an online questionnaire about their use of traditional or online self-help, including consultation behaviors or attitudes concerning initial treatment decisions. We measured secondary outcomes with validated questionnaires such as Distress Thermometer and the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 items to assess distress, anxiety, and depression. Physicians were asked in a paper-based questionnaire whether patients had accessed peer-to-peer support. Group comparisons were made using chi-square or McNemar tests for nominal variables and 2-sided t tests for ordinally scaled data.
resultsBefore COVID-19, 2.3% (7/308) of the patients attended an F2FG versus none thereafter. The frequency of OSG use did not change significantly: OSGs were used by 24.7% (76/308) and 23.5% (89/308) of the patients before and during COVID-19, respectively. OSG users had higher levels of anxiety and depression; 38% (46/121) reported OSG as helpful for decision-making. Although 4% (19/477) of OSG nonusers regretted treatment decisions, only 0.7% (1/153) of OSG users did (P=.03). More users than nonusers reported that OSGs were mentioned by physicians (P<.001). Patients and physicians agreed that F2FGs and OSGs were not mentioned in conversations or visited by patients. For 86% (6/7) of the patients, the physician was not aware of F2FG attendance. Physicians underestimated OSG usage by 2.6% (18/687) versus 24% (165/687) of actual use (P<.001).
conclusionsPhysicians are more aware of F2FGs than OSGs. Before COVID-19, F2FGs played a minor role. One out of 4 patients used OSGs. One-third considered them helpful for treatment decision-making. OSG use rarely affects the final treatment decision. Urologists significantly underestimate OSG use by their patients. Peer-to-peer support is more likely to be received by patients with anxiety and depression. Comparative interventional trials are needed to recommend peer-to-peer interventions for suitable patients.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID DRKS00014627; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00014627.
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.