ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Determining elderly-friendly radiation oncology clinics: a comparative analysis of accessibility and transport, physical environment, and privacy aspects (TROD 013 - 005).
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiotherapy is one of the main components of cancer treatment. However, its fractionated nature requires patients to make repeated visits to radiation oncology clinics. Considering the global increase in the elderly population and the growing number of older cancer patients, creating elderly-friendly radiation oncology clinics has become a healthcare priority. This study assesses the elderly-friendliness of radiation oncology clinics in Turkey, in terms of accessibility/transportation logistics, physical environment, and privacy considerations.
methodsData were collected via a 48-item survey developed to assess the elderly-friendliness of radiation oncology clinics. The World Health Organization’s Age-friendly Primary Health Care Centers Toolkit was used as the framework for survey development. Statistical analyses were performed using Jamovi (Version 2.3.28) and JASP (Version 0.18.3).
resultsA total of 155 physicians from 91 radiation oncology clinics participated in the survey. The median total comfort score was 26 (range:12–31). Clinics in private hospitals had significantly higher comfort scores (median = 28, range:18–31) compared with public (median = 25.5, range:12–31) and university hospitals (median = 26.0, range:18–31) (p = 0.02), while no significant difference was observed between public and university hospitals (p = 0.6). Clinics that were considered comfortable according to the statement “Our clinic is comfortable for geriatric patients” had significantly higher scores regarding privacy (p < 0.001), accessibility/transportation (p = 0.001), physical environment (p = 0.001), signage (p = 0.001), and total comfort score (p < 0.001). ROC analysis showed an AUC of 0.844 for the total score, with an optimal cut-off value of ≥ 26 (sensitivity: 72.97%, specificity: 76.47%, CI: 75.3%-91.1%, p < 0.001). According to the cut-off point of 26, 4 of the 26 private hospitals (15.3%), 15 of the 37 university hospitals (40.5%), and 14 of the 28 public hospitals (50.0%) scored below the threshold.
conclusionThis study aimed to highlight the importance of factors such as accessibility, physical environment, and privacy in determining the comfort of geriatric cancer patients and revealed significant differences among the types of radiation oncology clinics in Turkey. The initial findings of this survey indicate the need for certain adjustments to establish elderly-friendly clinics and ensure inter-clinic standardization, and they provide important insights for implementing the necessary improvements in radiation oncology clinics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.