ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Patient preferences for treatment‑free intervals in multiple myeloma: mixed‑methods insights on monitoring trade‑offs and supportive care improvements.
Article 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeContinuous and maintenance therapy remains central to multiple myeloma (MM) care, but repeated treatment-related healthcare encounters may impose physical, psychosocial, and logistical burden. We explored patient preferences regarding intervals between active treatment contacts, monitoring trade-offs, and opportunities to improve inpatient and outpatient care.
methodsA 12-month, single-center mixed-methods survey was conducted among 100 patients with MM at a German tertiary center. The survey assessed the perceived importance and preferred length of treatment-free intervals (TFIs), monitoring perceptions, relapse-risk trade-offs, inpatient stressors, and care-improvement proposals. Quantitative responses were summarized with item-specific denominators and exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Free-text responses underwent inductive content analysis by two independent raters and mixed-methods integration.
resultsIntervals between inpatient treatments were rated 10/10 by 49/100 participants (49.0%; 95% CI 38.9-59.2) and 0/10 by 9/100 (9.0%; 95% CI 4.2-16.4). The most frequently reported inpatient stressors were separation from family (27.0%), treatment-related symptoms or side effects (23.0%), and fatigue (17.0%). Regular check-ups were reassuring for 77/100 (77.0%; 95% CI 67.5-84.8) and burdensome for 13/100 (13.0%; 95% CI 7.1-21.2). Seven of 100 participants (7.0%; 95% CI 2.9-13.9) explicitly accepted higher relapse risk for longer TFIs. Preferred minimum interval length was heterogeneous; 39/99 (39.4%; 95% CI 29.7-49.7) preferred > 8 weeks. Qualitative narratives emphasized recovery, autonomy, restoration of routines, and modifiable care-process factors.
conclusionPatients frequently valued intervals between active treatment contacts for recovery, while monitoring was predominantly reassuring. These descriptive findings do not establish the safety or clinical appropriateness of longer TFIs but support prospective evaluation of preference-sensitive scheduling and monitoring.
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.