The development and comparative effectiveness of a patient-centered pathology report for breast cancer care: a randomized clinical trial.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Supportive Care in Cancer Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1007/s00520-025-09304-0
Sara H Javid, Mark R Kilgore, Elizabeth J Austin, Elizabeth U Parker, Rebeca Alvarez, Meghan R Flanagan, Elena G Brewer, Catalina Gibbons, Sarah K Holt, Janie M Lee, Amelia W Donlan, Lauren M DeStefano, John L Gore
{"title":"The development and comparative effectiveness of a patient-centered pathology report for breast cancer care: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Sara H Javid, Mark R Kilgore, Elizabeth J Austin, Elizabeth U Parker, Rebeca Alvarez, Meghan R Flanagan, Elena G Brewer, Catalina Gibbons, Sarah K Holt, Janie M Lee, Amelia W Donlan, Lauren M DeStefano, John L Gore","doi":"10.1007/s00520-025-09304-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Pathology reports contain complex medical terminology that may be confusing or overwhelming for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer. We evaluated the effectiveness of patient-centered pathology reports (PCPRs), which translate pathology results into patient-friendly language.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-six participants newly diagnosed with breast cancer were randomized to receive either a PCPR and standard pathology report (intervention arm) or a standard pathology report alone (control arm). Patients were surveyed at initial pathology disclosure and 1 month later to assess breast cancer knowledge and ratings of decisional confidence, conflict, and self-efficacy for treatment decision-making. Knowledge was assessed for four pathology domains independently.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Accuracy of breast cancer knowledge across all domains trended higher for the intervention group compared with the control group (66% vs. 50%, p = 0.11); cancer type and surgical margin status knowledge domains exceeded 75% accuracy for the intervention group. No significant differences between groups were observed for patient-reported ratings of communication, decisional conflict, and decision self-efficacy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PCPRs in lay language appeared to improve patients' knowledge of their breast cancer diagnosis, were acceptable to patients and providers, and have the potential to be broadly applied in an effort to improve patient knowledge and improve the patient experience surrounding a breast cancer diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":22046,"journal":{"name":"Supportive Care in Cancer","volume":"33 3","pages":"248"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supportive Care in Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-025-09304-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Pathology reports contain complex medical terminology that may be confusing or overwhelming for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer. We evaluated the effectiveness of patient-centered pathology reports (PCPRs), which translate pathology results into patient-friendly language.

Methods: Sixty-six participants newly diagnosed with breast cancer were randomized to receive either a PCPR and standard pathology report (intervention arm) or a standard pathology report alone (control arm). Patients were surveyed at initial pathology disclosure and 1 month later to assess breast cancer knowledge and ratings of decisional confidence, conflict, and self-efficacy for treatment decision-making. Knowledge was assessed for four pathology domains independently.

Results: Accuracy of breast cancer knowledge across all domains trended higher for the intervention group compared with the control group (66% vs. 50%, p = 0.11); cancer type and surgical margin status knowledge domains exceeded 75% accuracy for the intervention group. No significant differences between groups were observed for patient-reported ratings of communication, decisional conflict, and decision self-efficacy.

Conclusions: PCPRs in lay language appeared to improve patients' knowledge of their breast cancer diagnosis, were acceptable to patients and providers, and have the potential to be broadly applied in an effort to improve patient knowledge and improve the patient experience surrounding a breast cancer diagnosis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Supportive Care in Cancer
Supportive Care in Cancer 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.70%
发文量
751
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Supportive Care in Cancer provides members of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and all other interested individuals, groups and institutions with the most recent scientific and social information on all aspects of supportive care in cancer patients. It covers primarily medical, technical and surgical topics concerning supportive therapy and care which may supplement or substitute basic cancer treatment at all stages of the disease. Nursing, rehabilitative, psychosocial and spiritual issues of support are also included.
期刊最新文献
A pilot study of a targeted cognitive intervention for cancer survivors. Patient-reported evaluation of oral/dental health in oncology care-a need and opportunity to support medically necessary oral care needs. Perturbations in the neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction and renin angiotensin system pathways are associated with cancer-related cognitive impairment. Who is your ideal peer mentor? A qualitative study to identify cancer patient preferences for a digital peer support app. Proactive symptom monitoring to initiate timely palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: a randomized controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1