ArticlePsycho-oncology2025
Using consideRATE to Evaluate Patient Experience in a Cancer Center: Psychometric and Healthcare Assessments.
Article in Psycho-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A cost analysis of implementing facilitated improvements in hospital palliative care using patient reported experience measures: the LEAHP (Listen Empower Act - Hospital Palliative care) bundle.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Improving patient reported experience in inpatients with palliative care needs: a pre-post quality improvement study.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Use of the consideRATE and integRATE Measures to Assess Care Quality in Inpatient Palliative Care.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundconsideRATE is a patient- and care-partner-reported measure of care experience during serious illness. We used consideRATE with patients and care partners at the Dartmouth Cancer Center to assess patient experience, evaluate psychometric properties, and explore scoring approaches.
methodsPatients and care partners who are aged 18+ and English proficient participated in a cross-sectional survey. Participants completed consideRATE (8 items), CANHELP Lite (21 items), and demographic questions. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α, and validity was evaluated with Pearson's correlations. Continuous and top-box scoring approaches were used. Psychometric properties were analyzed for patients, care partners, and subgroups with lower educational attainment or income.
results244 participants (114 patients, 128 care-partners, 2 unspecified) completed the survey. consideRATE has internal reliability (α = 0.86); the correlation (r) between consideRATE continuous scoring and CANHELP Lite scores for all participants was 0.5; p < 0.001, for patients 0.5; p < 0.001, for care-partners 0.5; p < 0.001, for patients (n = 71) with lower educational attainment 0.5, p < 0.001, and for patients (n = 50) with lower income 0.7, p < 0.001. We also found correlations between consideRATE top-box scoring and CANHELP Lite scores for all participants (r
conclusionWe demonstrated in this sample of patients attending a cancer center that consideRATE has good internal reliability and is well correlated with CANHELP Lite.
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.