ArticleBMJ open2026
Gender differences in cancer care experiences in Switzerland: a multicentre cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess gender-related differences in patient-reported experiences across the cancer care pathway in Switzerland among patients with non-sex-specific cancers.
designMulticentre cross-sectional survey study.
settingSecondary and tertiary oncology care across 21 public and private hospitals in Switzerland, covering all linguistic regions.
participantsAdult patients (≥18 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of cancer who received oncological care in participating centres and completed a standardised patient experience questionnaire. Of 4408 respondents included in the analysis, both men and women with non-sex-specific cancers were analysed. Patients with sex-specific cancers were excluded.
interventionsNone PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the overall rating of cancer care (0-10 scale). The secondary outcomes were specific patient experiences in the pretreatment phase (consultations before the diagnosis, diagnosis and decision-making), during treatment (inpatient and outpatient care, specific treatments and nurse consultations) and in the post-treatment phase (follow-up, home care and psychosocial support).
resultsWomen rated their overall care lower than men (8.9 vs 9.1 on a 0-10 scale, p<0.001). After adjustment, women had lower odds of reporting a high rating (9 or 10) of their care (OR=0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87, p<0.001), of having received a written care plan (0.69, 0.59 to 0.82, p=0.001) and of receiving adequate information before surgery (0.42, 0.27 to 0.67, p=0.006) compared with men. Across the pathway, women consistently reported poorer experiences regarding communication, information and support compared with men. Conversely, men more often perceived unnecessary repetition of tests (1.42, 1.14 to 1.77, p=0.017).
conclusionsPersistent gender inequities in cancer care experiences were identified, pointing to systemic gaps in communication, information and support. Addressing these disparities through gender-sensitive care is crucial to ensuring equitable, patient-centred oncological care for all.
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.