The characteristics and effectiveness of Question Prompt List interventions in oncology: a systematic review of the literature
Open accessAbstract
Objective: Question Prompt Lists (QPLs) have been used extensively in the oncology setting to improve communication, psychological and/or cognitive outcomes. In this systematic review, the objectives were to (a) examine the methodological quality of QPL interventions, (b) review the effectiveness of QPL interventions on communication, psychological and/or cognitive outcomes of cancer patients, (c) gain more insight into the characteristics of QPL interventions (e.g., the number and content of questions, and the mode of delivery) and (d) explore whether the effectiveness of QPL interventions might be explained by their characteristics. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted in PsycINFO, Medline, CINAHL and CENTRAL. Empirical studies that investigated the use and effectiveness of QPL interventions in an oncology setting were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane method. Results: Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Results indicated evidence for the effectiveness of QPL interventions in enhancing patient participation (i.e., question asking). Furthermore, there was evidence that QPL interventions can influence psychological outcomes (i.e., anxiety at follow‐up) and cognitive outcomes (i.e., recall of information). The majority of QPL interventions were given to patients before their consultation in hardcopy. In most studies, QPLs were combined with other intervention components. It is suggested that characteristics of a QPL intervention (i.e., the number of questions on a QPL and provider training) can influence its effectiveness. Conclusion: Question Prompt List interventions are effective in improving communication, psychological and cognitive outcomes of cancer patients. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 233
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Street RL, Voigt B, Geyer C, Manning T, Swanson GP. Increasing patient involvement in choosing treatment for early breast cancer. Cancer 1995;76:2275-2285.
- Authors
- Brandes, K., Linn, A. J., Butow, P. N., & van Weert, J. C. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
- Corresponding author
- Brandes, Kim
- Venue
- Psycho-Oncology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-07-31
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 245-252
- ISSN
- 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1611
- OpenAlex
- W2159512327
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 9 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 2.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Keywords
- question prompt list, patient-provider communication, cancer patients, patient participation, anxiety, intervention characteristics, provider training, methodological quality
- MeSH terms
- Communication, Humans, Neoplasms, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Referral and Consultation, Reproducibility of Results, Reminder Systems
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
