ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Mapping methods and tools for measuring patient experience in oncology settings: a scoping review.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
purposePatient experience (PX) is crucial for evaluating healthcare quality in oncology, encompassing comprehensive interactions from diagnosis through survivorship. However, the field lacks consensus on PX measurement and its conceptualization. The aim of this scoping review was to systematically map methods and tools used to measure PX in original studies, while providing detailed characteristics of each tool.
methodsGuided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework, this review involved a systematic search across six databases up to May 2025.
resultsData from 109 original studies, identifying 43 unique tools, were extracted and synthesized narratively. Survey-based questionnaires predominated, with national cancer PX surveys being most frequently used (44%). Despite this, significant fragmentation was evident, with most tools used in limited studies (1-2). 63% of tools lacked explicit theoretical foundations, and psychometric reporting was imprecise. Consistently measured domains included information/communication, care coordination, and respect/dignity.
conclusionsThe measurement of PX in oncology is diverse but inconsistent, marked by a lack of standardization, theoretical ambiguity, and insufficient psychometric validation. Therefore, it is highly challenging to transfer such results into impactful clinical interventions for patients. Addressing these gaps through theory-driven tool development, rigorous validation, and culturally appropriate adaptations, especially for cancer survivorship and diverse global contexts, is essential.
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.