ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2026
Quantitative evaluation of healthcare information provided to patients with thoracic malignancies: patient satisfaction survey of the Japan Lung Cancer Society.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare professionals are increasingly providing medical information to patients. However, few objective evaluations of the information's usefulness exist. This study aimed to evaluate patient satisfaction with medical information sources, including the JLCS Guidebook and patient advocacy groups, using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's (EORTC) Quality of Life 25-item information module (QLQ-INFO25).
methodsPatients with thoracic malignancies were enrolled in the trial in response to calls from patient support groups and the Japanese Lung Cancer Society. Patient satisfaction was based on information obtained from the 2019 Japanese Lung Cancer Society's patient guidebook and a web-based survey of patients with lung cancer. Satisfaction with the information was analyzed using EORTC QLQ-INFO25 scores and stratified by guidebook use (users vs. non-users).
resultsOf 332 participants (110 male, 222 female), 283 (85.2%) completed the questionnaire, among which 82 (29.0%) read the guidebook. Participants found the research through online sources or by responding to an invitation from their primary physician or patient support group. Seventy-one users (91%) were satisfied with the guidebook content, as indicated by their individual QLQ-INFO25 scale scores. No statistically significant differences were observed between guidebook users and non-users; however, a trend toward higher satisfaction was noted among participants who used both the guidebook and advocacy groups.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that guidebooks and advocacy groups may contribute to improved patient satisfaction; however, further controlled studies are warranted. Our results provide an objective basis for discussing information provision for patients with lung cancer. Strategies should be developed to communicate information reflecting patients' diverse backgrounds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42204035What 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.