The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Advanced cancer patients’ prognostic information preferences: a review
Abstract
Open communication in cancer care has gained increasing importance in recent years and diagnostic disclosure is now common place. However, there is a significant variability in the sharing of prognostic information. Information needs may vary significantly over the disease trajectory, and there has been relatively little work done focussing on late illness. Using systematic review procedures, 13 studies were identified that addressed this issue. The evidence shows that all patients wanted honesty from their professional team and the vast majority wanted some broad indication of their prognosis, but that preferences for quantitative information were more varied. Benefits associated with realistic awareness included enhanced control and end-of-life planning, which was seen to engender hope. However, for a proportion of patients, hope and realism were irreconcilable when presented with detailed or unequivocal information. Professionals have a responsibility to provide information to patients, but also to respect the need to maintain some ambiguity about the future, if that is a patient’s wish. Therefore, prognostic discussions necessitate careful, individualised assessment, a process which can facilitate enhanced palliative care for patients with advanced cancer.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Retraction Note: When the treatment goal is not cure: are patients informed adequately?
Tattersall, M. H. N., Gattellari, M., Voigt, K., & Butow, P. N. (2001) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s005200100291 · Cited by 64
RetractedRelationship between cancer patients' predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences
Weeks, J. C. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.21.1709 · Cited by 1,319
Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically
Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J. (2002) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732302238251 · Cited by 1,216
Self-citationCommunicating with realism and hope: incurable cancer patients' views on the disclosure of prognosis
Hagerty, R. G., Butow, P. N., Ellis, P. M., Lobb, E. A., Pendlebury, S. C., Leighl, N., Mac Leod, C., & Tattersall, M. H. N. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.11.138 · Cited by 582
Collusion in doctor-patient communication about imminent death: an ethnographic study
The, A.-M., Hak, T., Koeter, G., & van der Wal, G. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1376 · Cited by 533
Communicating prognosis in cancer care: a systematic review of the literature
Hagerty, R. G., Butow, P. N., Ellis, P. M., Dimitry, S., & Tattersall, M. H. N. (2005) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi211 · Cited by 504
Cancer Patient Preferences for Communication of Prognosis in the Metastatic Setting
Hagerty, R. G., Butow, P. N., Ellis, P. A., Lobb, E. A., Pendlebury, S., Leighl, N., Goldstein, D., Lo, S. K., & Tattersall, M. H. N. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.04.095 · Cited by 503
Truth may hurt but deceit hurts more: communication in palliative care
Fallowfield, L. J., Jenkins, V. A., & Beveridge, H. A. (2002) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1191/0269216302pm575oa · Cited by 498
Kirk, P., Kirk, I., & Kristjanson, L. J. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38103.423576.55 · Cited by 424
Death foretold: prophecy and prognosis in medical care
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-0972 · Cited by 394
Cited by
Enzinger, A. C., Zhang, B., Schrag, D., & Prigerson, H. G. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2015.61.9239 · Cited by 379
Chen, C. H., Kuo, S. C., & Tang, S. T. (2017) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/0269216316663976 · Cited by 146
Conceptualizing prognostic awareness in advanced cancer: A systematic review
Applebaum, A. J., Kolva, E. A., Kulikowski, J. R., Jacobs, J. D., DeRosa, A., Lichtenthal, W. G., Olden, M. E., Rosenfeld, B., & Breitbart, W. (2014) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105313484782 · Cited by 145
Akpan-Idiok, P. A., & Anarado, A. N. (2014) · Pan African Medical Journal · doi:10.11604/pamj.2014.18.159.2995 · Cited by 76
Kiely, B. E., McCaughan, G., Christodoulou, S., Beale, P. J., Grimison, P., Trotman, J., Tattersall, M. H. N., & Stockler, M. R. (2013) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-012-1526-4 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- Innes, S., & Payne, S.
- Venue
- Palliative Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-11-14
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29-39
- ISSN
- 0269-2163 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-030X
- OpenAlex
- W2119277569
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 11.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Advanced cancer patients’ prognostic information preferences: a review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0269216308098799
- The paper
- Innes, S., & Payne, S. (2009). Advanced cancer patients’ prognostic information preferences: a review. Palliative Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216308098799
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
