ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2026
A web-based application to promote palliative care in advanced ovarian cancer: A pre-post design.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the advanced ovarian cancer setting (AOC), palliative care (PC) is appropriate for virtually every patient. The objectives of this study were 1) to compare referral and visit rates to PC services, pre and post implementation of the electronic Self-Assessment and Care (eSAC) application, in both a prospective study sample and for the institutional population of patients with advanced ovarian cancer; and 2) explore patients' experiences integrating PC into their medical care. Methods: Participants remotely submitted symptom and quality of life (QOL) reports about 5 days prior to clinic visits. Moderate-severe symptoms or QOL reports triggered teaching modules, including PC, and clinicians received summary reports with a PC prompt. PC rates were calculated for the prospective sample participants. Pre- and post-study rates for PC were compared using two-sample tests of proportions in the institutional population. A purposive sample of participants who triggered PC referral recommendations were recruited for semi-structured, telephone interviews to explore their experiences with PC integration. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to analyze interview data. Results: In the prospective sample, 145/165 (88 %) patients enrolled; 120 submitted ≥1 report. 78/120 (65 %) participants triggered the PC referral recommendation on ≥1 report; 46 of 78 (59 %) were referred to PC and 49 (63 %) had an initial PC visit by six weeks after the end of the enrollment period. From pre-to-post implementation, institutional PC referral rates increased from 8.6 % to 12.8 % (p = 0.014). Rates of having a PC visit were not significant between pre- and post-implementation. Thirteen participants completed qualitative interviews. Two primary domains emerged: cancer care narratives, and perceptions of PC integration. Key barriers to PC engagement included limited understanding of PC scope, perception of adequate current care, and concerns about care burden and appointment fatigue. Conclusions: Implementation of eSAC may have impacted the institutional referral rates for PC but did not result in a significant increase in visits. In study participants who triggered a referral, 63 % attended at least one PC visit. Qualitative findings revealed significant barriers to PC engagement including limited understanding of PC services and perceived care burden.
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.