Observational studyIrish journal of medical science2025
A qualitative analysis of head and neck cancer patient's lived experience on their treatment journey in a single Irish institution.
Observational study in Irish journal of medical science, 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.
- A Qualitative Study of Patient and Caregiver Perspectives on Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer in the United States.Oncology and therapy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHead and neck cancer can have a dramatic impact on the lives of patients. We wish to determine patients subjective preparedness for their treatment and to assess their service satisfaction provided by a Head and Neck Cancer Unit.
methodsAn observational cohort study of patients with a diagnosis of head and neck cancer was performed. This consisted of a 22-question survey of post-treatment patients. Patients prior to their clinic appointment were offered a feedback form for completion. The patients were aware that the clinician was blinded to completion of the form and advised that their feedback would not alter their future management.
resultsIn total, 40 patients completed the questionnaire. Patients felt physically, mentally, nutritionally ready pre-treatment in 94%, 84.2% and 89% respectively. Forty per cent of respondents felt they would have benefited from the support of a psychologist. Regarding speech and swallow, 96% and 93% of patients felt they had adequate education of voice and swallow. 96% felt they had adequate post op support.
conclusionPatient-reported outcomes and feedback are essential to assess service provision and determine areas of insufficiency. One area of deficiency identified is regarding psychological support and we wish to highlight this insufficiency within our unit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40643852What 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.