ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Oncologists' Views and Communication Practices Regarding Unproven High-Cost Cancer Interventions in Private Medical Practice: A Questionnaire Survey.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionIn Japan, while public health insurance ensures evidence-based-care, high-cost private medical practices offer advanced interventions-collectively referred to as "X" in this study-which have limited scientific evidence but have raised ethical and clinical concerns, particularly in oncology. This study explores oncologists' perceptions and responses to X in practice to inform appropriate countermeasures.MethodsMembers of the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (n = 6273) completed a questionnaire survey between April 24 and June 10, 2024. The survey explored the oncologists' evaluations of X, their responses to patient inquiries about such interventions, and their personal preferences if they were personally diagnosed with cancer.ResultsOf 828 valid responses (response rate: 13.2%), 63.4% of oncologists reported receiving patient inquiries about X in the past year. Overall, 76.4% gave a negative evaluation of X, while over 90% provided negative ratings on 7 out of the 9 specific items. Despite this, many oncologists reported a neutral stance when discussing X with the patients. Notably, even without standard of care options, most indicated that they would not choose X for themselves. The findings reveal a considerable gap between oncologists' evaluation of X and what they convey when communicating with the patients. Qualitative responses expressed concerns about insufficient follow-up care and potential exploitation of vulnerable patients.ConclusionThis study highlights the need for more transparent, evidence-based communication between oncologists and patients regarding X. Enhancing such dialogue is essential for supporting informed decision-making and maintaining the integrity of cancer care in the face of unproven private medical interventions. Furthermore, considering X's profound negative impact on patients, society, and the field of medicine, legitimate medical professionals must conduct clear and accurate evaluations of X to facilitate the understanding of the patients and general public.
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.