ArticleJournal of research in pharmacy practice2026
The Effect of Two Different Pharmacist-led Educations Provided to Patients with Colorectal Cancer Receiving an Oral Antineoplastic Agent: A Comparative Interventional Study.
Article in Journal of research in pharmacy practice, 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
Objectives: To the best of our knowledge, no report on pharmacist-provided education to patients receiving oral chemotherapy agents in Iran has been published. This study was conducted to compare the effect of two education methods on the knowledge of patients with colorectal cancer who received capecitabine as an oral anticancer drug. Methods: Eighty-four patients with colorectal cancer who have received capecitabine were included in the study; 42 patients received a booklet, and 42 other patients received the booklet in addition to a pharmacist-led face-to-face (FTF) education, which was designed based on the standard of MASCC Oral Agent Teaching Tool. Patients were assigned to the study groups using a stratified random sampling method. Patients' knowledge was evaluated in four categories (dosing, administration and method of use; common adverse effects; important adverse effects, and interactions; storage and disposal) by a researcher-developed questionnaire designed and standardized before patient enrollment. Patients' knowledge was assessed before and 3-6 weeks after the educational interventions using the questionnaire. Findings: The mean knowledge score about capecitabine in both the groups has increased significantly through the study, 21.38 ± 2.57 vs. 17.5 ± 4.47 in the booklet-only group and 22.92 ± 1.45 vs. 16.23 ± 3.44 in the FTF-education-plus-booklet group. In the second group, the mean change of total knowledge score after the intervention was significantly higher compared with the booklet-only group (5.69 ± 3.30 vs. 3.88 ± 3.65, Conclusion: Both patient education methods were effective in increasing patients' drug-related knowledge. Although written educational methods like booklets could improve patients' knowledge, FTF education is more effective.
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.