Observational studyThe oncologist2025
Digital integration of narrative medicine and patient-reported outcome measures to improve understanding of quality of life in metastatic breast cancer: the PERGIQUAL study.
Observational study in The oncologist, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis observational, prospective study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and usefulness of a person-based care (PbC) digital pathway integrating narrative medicine (NM) and electronic patient-reported outcomes measures (e-PROMs) for patients with metastatic breast cancer; the secondary objective was to assess its perceived impact on quality of life (QoL). PATIENTS AND
methodsThe study was conducted in Italy from May 2023 to February 2024. Enrolled patients (≥18 years old, life expectancy ≥24 weeks) completed a digital diary with narrative prompts and the EORTC QLQ-C30/+Br23 questionnaire at enrollment and before each treatment cycle. Oncologists reviewed narratives and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), adjusting care accordingly. Feasibility, usefulness, and perceived impact on QoL were assessed through final questionnaires for patients and oncologists. Feasibility was also evaluated via compliance and usefulness through thematic and comparative analysis of narratives and PROs, assessing integration, concordance, and discordance.
resultsTwenty-nine patients and 6 oncologists participated. Study compliance was high; 21 patients and all oncologists completed the final questionnaires. Patients evaluated the digital diary as usable and effective in communication, while oncologists valued its compatibility with clinical workflow and ability to gather details not captured by ePROMs. Concordance and discordance between narratives and PROs were low (4.8% vs. 0.5%), but they provided complementary information (30.5% vs. 64.2%). PROs were more integrative in "problem" items (78.4% vs. 15.5%), whereas narratives were more informative on "resource" items (79% vs. 18.3%). Ten patients reported improved perceived QoL through the PbC pathway, while 6 found it potentially beneficial. Oncologists recognized its role in personalizing care.
conclusionIntegrating NM and ePROMs in the PbC pathway proved feasible and useful, enhancing the perceived impact on QoL and fostering more personalized and empathetic care.
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.