Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41844541›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2026

Accuracy of patient, care partner, and clinician health care contact day recall.

Kendall Lin, Rick J Jansen, Manju George, Allison Breininger, Samuel X Stevens, Christopher M Booth, Helen M Parsons, Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss, Rachel I Vogel, Anne H Blaes and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Kendall LinUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, United States.
Rick J JansenUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, United States.
Manju GeorgePaltown Development Foundation/COLONTOWN, Edgewater, MD 21037, United States.
Allison BreiningerThe Negative Space, Minneapolis, MN 55116, United States.
Samuel X StevensSchool of Medicine, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia.
Christopher M BoothDivision of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Sinclair Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1505-0575
Helen M ParsonsUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3822-9858
Jeanette Y ZiegenfussCenter for Evaluation and Survey Research, HealthPartners Institute, Bloomington, MN 55425, United States.
Rachel I VogelUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, United States.
Anne H BlaesUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, United States.
Arjun GuptaUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0875-4731

Funding

Women's CancerP30CA077598 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Jeffrey S. Miller · 1998 to 2026
$100.4M
Arnold Ventures awarded to AG. ResearchBiostatistics Core shared resource of the Masonic Cancer CenterNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health UL1-TR002494NIH HHS P30CA077598University of Minnesota
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContact days are increasingly used as a measure of time toxicity, but current measurement approaches (eg, claims data) face limitations. To determine whether participant recall of contact days could serve as a practical approach, we evaluated contact day recall accuracy among patients, care partners, and clinicians across multiple recall windows.

methodsThis single-center cross-sectional survey study enrolled adults with cancer, their informal care partner, and their primary oncologist. Participants were asked to recall the number of patient contact days and associated care burden over the prior 7, 14, 30, and 60-days. Electronic medical record (EMR) data provided gold standard contact day data. The primary outcome was recall accuracy (within ±1, ±2, ±4, and ±8 days of EMR counts across windows).

resultsWe enrolled 42 patients, 29 care partners, and 8 clinicians. Median EMR-derived contact days were 2, 3, 7, and 11 across the 7-, 14-, 30-, and 60-day periods. Accuracy was high for all groups at 7 and 14 days (≥75%) and declined with longer windows. Participant-estimated contact days were moderately correlated with participant-assessed patient burden for patients and clinicians. We did not observe a meaningful correlation between EMR-derived contact days and patient-reported burden.

conclusionA single-item patient (or care partner or clinician)-reported outcome of recalling contact days may be a practical and accurate method of determining recent contact days, particularly over shorter recall periods. The subjective recall of contact days may be more associated with burden than the exact objective contact day number.

Indexed as

CaregiversMental RecallNeoplasmsAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedcontact dayspatient-reported outcomesrecall accuracytime toxicity

Identifiers

PMID41844541
PMCPMC13026417

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.