ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2025
Where are audiologists in the room of wizards? Oncology patient experiences with audiology in an Australian public hospital.
Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study reports the thoughts and experiences of a sample of these patients regarding audiology and hearing impairment during CT. It expands on recent research in a large, publicly funded tertiary hospital in Australia that revealed that patients receiving ototoxic, cumulative cisplatin chemotherapy (CT) had a median of zero encounters with audiology (IQR = 0-1) during their treatment. This finding was in contrast with international audiological ototoxicity monitoring (OtoM) guidelines that recommend prospective OtoM for all patients undergoing CT. SAMPLE AND
settingFifteen adults from a cohort of 189 cancer patients were interviewed who received CT at a large Australian tertiary hospital between 1st January and 31st December 2023. STUDY
designA convergent parallel mixed-method design was utilised for this study. PROCEDURES: Participants completed a demographic and hearing handicap questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. Patient demographics were described, and interview transcripts were analysed using inductive content analysis.
resultsScores on the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory Screening Tool ranged from 0 to 26 out of a maximum score of 40. Of the fifteen participants, 12 reported symptoms of hearing loss, 10 reported symptoms of tinnitus, and 8 reported symptoms of both. Patients described their experiences in vivid and emotive detail. Patient thoughts and experiences fell into two major themes. The first theme, 'Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment', had four distinct subcategories of content-information and information needs, side effects of cancer treatment, ongoing quality of life, and memory. The second theme, 'Audiology Experience and Hearing', had six subcategories of content: referral process, audiology experience and education, self-management, tinnitus, hearing, and recommendations to improve the process. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study has highlighted unmet needs relating to ototoxicity across the processes of audiological monitoring and referral, provision of information to patients, and provider awareness of services in the Australian public health system. The absence of audiological OtoM could deny patients access to the information needed to make informed decisions regarding their hearing during their chemotherapy treatment. These findings can be used to benchmark areas for improvement and address limitations in audiology referral processes and OtoM care pathways in Australia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41239162What 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.