ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Invisible harm in patient safety: a framework and definition for preventable psychological harm in cancer care.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- What do we know about medical invalidation and related concepts? - A scoping review and thematic analysis about the definitions, measurements, causes, consequences and potential solutions for medical invalidation.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Perceived Preparedness in Psycho-Oncology: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Expectations and Training Experiences Among Undergraduate Psychology Students.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile patient safety is receiving increasing attention in healthcare services research and policies, it is mainly centred around prevention of physical harm. Preventable psychological harm (PPH) remains invisible in reports and quality measurements. As patients with cancer are particularly vulnerable due to the severity of their condition and therapies, they are exposed to risks such as non-physical adverse events. Recently, incidents of psychological harm have gained more attention in patient safety research, but a common and accepted definition and classification are missing.
aimWe aimed to develop a common definition of PPH and a corresponding framework to classify events, settled within patient safety concepts and terminology.
methodsThrough a literature review, expert interviews from various healthcare backgrounds and workshops with patient representatives, we gathered information on PPH, which was reviewed and structured by an interdisciplinary research team (patient safety, psycho-oncology, palliative care research, nursing, organisational psychology). The final definition and framework were iteratively developed taking into account existing patient safety concepts.
resultsThe definition broadens the classification of PPH to include a wide range of commissions and omissions by individuals or organizational practices within the health care system. These actions and inactions result in consequences of varying severity for patients and their close ones. The framework complements the definition of PPH, including those impacted by PPH, types of PPH, potential causes and contributing factors, vulnerabilities influencing severity and occurrence, moderating factors for mitigation and negative consequences of PPH.
conclusionsDefining and classifying PPH is the first step to make it accessible for measurement, analysis and prevention. Its integration within patient safety terminology is important to ensure uptake and integration in research and practice.
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.