Cited by 145Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePalliative and Oncologic Care

Conceptualizing prognostic awareness in advanced cancer: A systematic review

Applebaum, Allison J, Kolva, Elissa A, Kulikowski, Julia R, Jacobs, Jordana D, DeRosa, Antonio, Lichtenthal, Wendy G, Olden, Megan E, Rosenfeld, Barry +1 more·2014·Journal of Health Psychology

Abstract

This systematic review synthesizes the complex literature on prognostic awareness in cancer. A total of 37 studies examining cancer patients’ understanding of their prognosis were included. Prognostic awareness definitions and assessment methods were inconsistent across studies. A surprisingly high percentage of patients (up to 75%) were unaware of their poor prognosis, and in several studies, even their cancer diagnosis (up to 96%), particularly in studies conducted outside of North America. This review highlights surprisingly low rates of prognostic awareness in patients with advanced cancer as well as discrepancies in prognostic awareness assessment, suggesting the need for empirically validated measures of prognostic awareness.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1359105313484782

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Most studies of prognostic understanding simply asked terminal illness patients whether they perceived the illness as terminal or curable, or whether the treatment goal was palliative or curative.

    “Applebaum and colleagues found that most studies simply asked patients with terminal illness whether they perceived the illness to be terminal or curable, or if the goal of treatment was palliative or curative.2”

    From Measuring a Patient's understanding of their prognosis: An exploratory analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Results (Structured measurement of PA; page unavailable) describe six studies that used understanding of palliative versus curative treatment as a measure, along with studies assessing perceived curability. But the Discussion (page unavailable) reports substantial variation across the 37 studies, including measures of life expectancy, and the Results include patients at earlier disease stages and assessments made by clinicians. The review therefore supports the kinds of questions described, not the claim that most studies simply asked terminally ill patients those questions. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many cancer patients do not have an accurate perception of their disease stage, so stage identified from medical charts might not be an appropriate proxy for patients' understanding of prognosis.

    “Additionally, given that many cancer patients do not have an accurate perception of their disease stage (Applebaum et al., 2014), stage of cancer as identified from medical charts might not be an appropriate proxy variable for patients’ understanding of their prognosis.”

    From The relationship between acceptance of cancer and distress: A meta-analytic review (2019) · cites this paper as Applebaum et al., 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Applebaum, A. J., Kolva, E. A., Kulikowski, J. R., Jacobs, J. D., DeRosa, A., Lichtenthal, W. G., Olden, M. E., Rosenfeld, B., & Breitbart, W.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • Fordham University (US)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
Venue
Journal of Health Psychology
Published
2013-10-24
Volume
19
Issue
9
Pages
1103-1119
ISSN
  • 1359-1053 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7277
OpenAlex
W2100410564
Cited by
145
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (NCI T32CA009461-28, R01CA128187, K07CA172216, P30CA008748, T32CA009461)
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
prognostic awareness, advanced cancer, prognosis understanding, psychometric measures, end-of-life care
MeSH terms
Awareness, Humans, Neoplasms, Prognosis

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