ReviewSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Response shift in oncology: fact or myth.
Review 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are central to evaluating quality of life (QoL) in cancer care, yet subjective ratings do not always align with objective health status. This review examines response shift-a phenomenon in which individuals' internal standards, values, and conceptualization of QoL change over time-to determine whether response shift in oncology is a myth or fact.
methodsWe reviewed theoretical foundations of response shift including the original model proposed by Sprangers and Schwartz (1999) and cognitive appraisal framework proposed by Rapkin and Schwartz (2004), examining evidence from previously published reviews.
resultsSprangers and Schwartz's model defines three types of response shift: recalibration (changing internal standards), reprioritization (changing values), and reconceptualization (redefining QoL). Response shift has been identified in cancer patients across virtually every major cancer type. Response shift can operate in two directions: individuals with significant illness or disability may report higher QoL than expected (the disability paradox), or genuinely effective interventions may appear less effective because patients' standards or definitions of QoL have changed over time (the Schwartz 1999 paradox). Consequently, response shift may explain null or negative intervention effects despite meaningful clinical improvement. Failure to account for response shift can therefore result in either overestimation or underestimation of true treatment-related change.
conclusionsResponse shift is neither a statistical artifact nor a methodological nuisance but a genuine cognitive process that can distort PROM data in either direction. Incorporating cognitive appraisal and response shift into future PROM design may improve the accuracy and interpretability of patient-reported QoL data in oncology.
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.