Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40842621›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient experience2025

Assessment of Patient Experience During Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

Devon M Langston, Matthew J DePuccio, Ann Scheck McAlearney, Sooyoung Kim, Alice A Gaughan, Alicia Scimeca, Shawn Dason, Tasha Posid, John O DeLancey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient experience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Devon M LangstonCollege of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Matthew J DePuccioCenter for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking (CATALYST), College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0014-0850
Ann Scheck McAlearneyCenter for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking (CATALYST), College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Sooyoung KimCenter for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking (CATALYST), College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9264-6321
Alice A GaughanCenter for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking (CATALYST), College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9109-3473
Alicia ScimecaDepartment of Urology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Shawn DasonDepartment of Urology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Tasha PosidDepartment of Urology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
John O DeLanceyDepartment of Urology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Active surveillance is a preferred strategy for patients with low-risk prostate cancer to delay and/or avoid side effects of treatment. While its impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has been studied, factors influencing follow-up adherence and patient involvement in active surveillance protocols remain less understood. This study aimed to explore patient perspectives on testing modalities, frequencies, and satisfaction with active surveillance. HRQOL surveys and active surveillance-specific questions assessed patients undergoing active surveillance at a US academic medical center between 2019 and 2021 after Institutional Review Board approval. Respondents were invited to interviews and thematic analysis identified key themes. Forty-six participants completed surveys and 12 were interviewed. Satisfaction with active surveillance was reported by 93.3%, and 97.7% indicated a willingness to opt for the same treatment again. Anxiety and urinary function were key factors influencing quality of life. Trust in the doctor's recommendations, avoiding side effects, and feeling it is a good way to monitor their cancer were common reasons for choosing active surveillance. Addressing organizational factors, treatment equity, and evolving patient perspectives can refine active surveillance protocols. Understanding patient experiences can inform tailored protocols and improve patient-provider communication, enhancing patients' well-being and adherence.

Indexed as

Active surveillancehealth-related quality of lifeHRQOLprostate cancerquality of life (QOL)

Identifiers

PMID40842621
PMCPMC12365426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.