ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Understanding the
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Managing Conflicting Prognostic Communication Preferences in Pediatric Oncology.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Prognostic communication preferences of cancer patients: A hybrid concept analysis.International journal of nursing sciences · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesHigh-quality prognostic communication in pediatric oncology is essential to support informed decision making, foster trust, and honor goals of care. While families differ in their preferences for how prognosis is discussed, clinicians often rely on assumptions rather than directly eliciting these preferences, risking misalignment and distress. To address this gap, we aimed to characterize patient, parent, and oncologist perspectives on key variables, experiences, and circumstances that influence their preferences for prognostic communication.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 85 participants (25 patients aged 12-25, 40 parents, and 20 oncologists) to elicit their preferences for prognostic communication and the reasons behind these preferences. Rapid analysis was conducted to generate themes and identify patterns and variances across participant cohorts.
resultsFour distinct themes underpinning prognostic communication preferences were described by patients, parents, and oncologists: (1) personality, ideals, and values; (2) general life experiences; (3) prior interactions with the medical system; and (4) faith. Participants emphasized that personal identity and prior experiences significantly shaped how they wished to receive prognostic information. Clinicians and parents often linked preferences to core aspects of their professional or caregiver identities.
conclusionsUnderstanding the individualized factors shaping communication preferences can guide clinicians in tailoring prognostic discussions. Open-ended inquiry into identity, personal values, and past experiences can foster respectful, personalized communication in pediatric oncology. Further research is needed to determine best practices for prompting discussion about prognostic communication preferences that incorporates the reasons underpinning these preferences.
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.