The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Patients’ Perceptions of Receiving Bad News About Cancer
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to document patients’ recollections about what transpired during bad news interactions between physicians and themselves. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty cancer patients provided information about the most recent time they received bad cancer-specific news. Using a series of descriptive statements, patients reported on what the physician did while communicating the bad news. Patients also indicated the extent to which they were satisfied with the transaction and whether they believed that the interaction had any long-lasting impact on their adjustment or on their subsequent interactions with the physician who delivered the news. RESULTS: Overall, patients reported having similar experiences, with most physicians behaving in ways that were consistent with advice published in the medical literature. Satisfaction with the bad news transaction was high. Younger patients and women found the transaction to be more stressful, and older patients believed that the transaction was less important for subsequent interactions with the physician. Logistic regression analyses indicated that satisfaction with the transaction was uniquely predicted by factors related to the environment, to what the physician said, and to how the physician said it. CONCLUSION: Despite high levels of self-reported satisfaction by patients, some factors differentiated the most satisfied patients from patients who were less satisfied. The findings suggest that special attention should be given to making the environment comfortable, taking plenty of time with the patient, and attempting to empathize with the patient’s experiences.
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
Cited by
Communicating 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
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
Pisters, K. M. W., Evans, W. K., Azzoli, C. G., Kris, M. G., Smith, C. A., Desch, C. E., Somerfield, M. R., Brouwers, M. C., Darling, G., Ellis, P. M., et al. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.14.1226 · Cited by 363
A systematic review of the associations between empathy measures and patient outcomes in cancer care
Lelorain, S., Brédart, A., Dolbeault, S., & Sultan, S. (2012) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.2115 · Cited by 289
Breaking bad news–what patients want and what they get: evaluating the SPIKES protocol in Germany
Seifart, C., Hofmann, M., Bär, T., Riera Knorrenschild, J., Seifart, U., & Rief, W. (2014) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt582 · Cited by 177
Metadata
- Authors
- Ptacek, J. T., & Ptacek, J. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2001-11-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 4160-4164
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1848061503
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.16
- 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: Patients’ Perceptions of Receiving Bad News About Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2001.19.21.4160
- The paper
- Ptacek, J. T., & Ptacek, J. J. (2001). Patients’ Perceptions of Receiving Bad News About Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.21.4160
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.