ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2025
Cervical cancer patients' knowledge and experiences with palliative care - A qualitative study.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: There is limited research examining palliative care (PC) knowledge and experiences in patients with cervical cancer. As this may inform who may benefit from specialty PC services, we investigated PC awareness, perspectives, needs, and acceptability in this population. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study of patients with newly diagnosed (<12 months) cervical cancer. Eligible patients were > 18 years old and English-speaking. Semi-structured interview topics included knowledge/perceptions of PC, knowledge/perceptions of hospice, and experiences with PC or hospice. Participants were then read a brief definition and overview of services provided by PC (education). We then explored perceptions of PC acceptability and timing. Interviews were deidentified, professionally transcribed, and coded. Codes were grouped into categories and themes. Results: Seventeen patients participated. Median age was 52, 64 % were white, all had insurance. 35 % had stage I disease, 17.6 % stage II, and 47 % stage III. Most had minimal PC knowledge (12/17, 70.6 %) but were aware of hospice (16/17, 94.1 %) and understood it as end-of-life care (10/17, 58.8 %). Following our education, most felt PC would be beneficial (13/17, 76.5 %), and favored early introduction in their care (11/17, 64.7 %). We identified four main themes: two pre-education (PC knowledge is lacking, hospice is well-understood and favorably viewed) and two post-education (PC would provide an unmet benefit, early PC is preferable). Conclusions: PC knowledge was limited. However, following brief education, most patients found it desirable and favored early integration. This highlights the need for further research on developing early PC initiatives for patients with cervical cancer.
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.