ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Medical information and decision-making in palliative cancer: a qualitative study of patients' perceptions, needs, and preferences regarding physician communication.
Article in BMC palliative care, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with advanced cancer are frequently confronted with complex treatment decisions in the context of high emotional burden and potential limited prognostic benefit. Physician communication and the provision of medical information are therefore central to informed decision-making in the palliative treatment setting. However, little is known about how patients themselves perceive physician communication during oncological informed consent consultations and which needs and preferences they articulate regarding provision of information and decision-making. The aim of this study was to explore patients' perceptions of physician communication and to identify their needs and preferences in the context of palliative cancer treatment.
methodsThis qualitative study was embedded within a multicenter interventional project in Germany. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients diagnosed with stage IV esophageal cancer, stage IV (non-) small cell lung cancer, or Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C hepatocellular carcinoma who were undergoing systemic therapy. Interviews were conducted either in the outpatient clinic or by telephone, audio-recorded with participants' consent, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz, combining deductive and inductive category development. Coding was performed using MAXQDA.
resultsAnalysis identified three central themes. First, communication quality shaped patients' understanding and coping: patients valued direct, empathic, and transparent communication, but comprehension was often limited by emotional burden, medical terminology, and cognitive overload. Second, treatment decisions were often perceived as predetermined: shared decision-making was limited, and many patients relied on trust-based delegation rather than active decisional control. Third, communication needs were individualized and dynamic: patients differed in their desired information depth and emphasized the need for repeated conversations, plain language, involvement of relatives, and psychosocial support.
conclusionsCommunication in palliative oncology should be conceptualized as an adaptive and ongoing process rather than a single informational event. Patients' informational needs and preferences for participation vary considerably and are shaped by emotional readiness, prior knowledge, and coping strategies. They should therefore be proactively explored prior to diagnosis and treatment discussions.
trial registrationThe study was registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00029632).
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.