Health Information Preferences and Curability Beliefs Among Patients With Advanced Cancer
Open accessAbstract
Context Accurate prognostic understanding is associated with increased advance care planning, symptom control, and patient autonomy in oncology. The impact of prognostic understanding on patients' health information preferences (HIPs) and prognostic information preferences is unknown and has important implications for health care communication.Objectives The present study characterized the HIPs of patients with advanced cancer; examined differences in HIPs between patients with varying curability beliefs; and identified differences in the characteristics and psychological well-being of patients with varying curability beliefs.Methods This cross-sectional study used a secondary data analysis of baseline data (prerandomization) for patients enrolled in a large randomized controlled psychotherapy trial. 206 participants were recruited from outpatient clinics at a single facility. Inclusion criteria included: 18 years and older; English speaking, Stage IV solid tumor cancer, and Distress Thermometer score of ≥4.Results Most participants preferred as many details as possible about their diagnosis and treatment (69.4%; n = 143), and the likely outcome of their disease (72.3%; n = 149). Most participants accurately described their cancer as unlikely curable or incurable (62.6%; n = 129). There were no significant differences in HIPs based on level of prognostic understanding. Poorer prognostic understanding was associated with religiosity and better quality of life and existential well-being.Conclusion In the present study, prognostic understanding (i.e., curability beliefs) was not associated with HIPs. Therefore, oncology clinicians must individually and interatively evaluate patients' interest and preferences for receiving information. Future research should further clarify preferences for the framing and content of prognostic information from providers and improve the measurement of prognostic understanding to facilitate patient-centered end-of-life care.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Previous research corroborates the correlation between hopelessness and perceived curability in stage IV cancer patients.
“Previous research also corroborates the correlation between hopelessness and perceived curability in a sample of stage IV cancer patients.19”
From Measuring a Patient's understanding of their prognosis: An exploratory analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [19]
This finding is consistent with research demonstrating that stage IV cancer patients in a psychotherapy trial who perceived their cancer as unlikely curable or incurable had less death acceptance than those who perceived the cancer as curable or likely curable.
“This finding is consistent with research demonstrating that patients with stage IV cancer participating in a psychotherapy research trial who perceived their cancer as unlikely curable or incurable had less death acceptance than those who perceived the cancer as curable or likely curable.19”
From Measuring a Patient's understanding of their prognosis: An exploratory analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [19]
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 32 · Cited by 20
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [21]Reker GT. The Life Attitude Profile-Revised:(LAP-R). Peterborough, Ontario, Canada: Student Psychologists Press; 2001.
- Authors
- Saracino, R. M., Polacek, L. C., Applebaum, A. J., Rosenfeld, B., Pessin, H., & Breitbart, W.
- Affiliations
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Saracino, Rebecca M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-01
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 121-127
- ISSN
- 0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7770014
- OpenAlex
- W3046533780
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 2.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
- Keywords
- health information preferences, prognostic understanding, advanced cancer, prognostic information, advance care planning, end-of-life care, patient-centered care, religiosity, existential well-being, quality of life, oncology communication
- MeSH terms
- Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Neoplasms, Prognosis, Quality of Life, Terminal Care, Patient Preference
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
