Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42470522›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026

Patient experiences of tissue donation and digital consent support in primary craniospinal tumour research.

Gerard Mawhinney, Helen Higham, Simon Leedham, Olaf Ansorge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 'A No-Brainer, but Not a Simple Decision': A Qualitative Study of Patient Experiences of Tissue Donation for Research in Rare Craniospinal Tumour Pathways.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
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

4 authors.

Gerard MawhinneyNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. gerard.mawhinney@ndcn.ox.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4595-6482
Helen HighamNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5796-0377
Simon LeedhamNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1476-6982
Olaf AnsorgeNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1825-5434

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/X004317/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRequests for tissue donation for research are often made at times of heightened vulnerability, particularly around diagnosis and surgery. This study explored patient experiences of tissue donation discussions, perspectives on consent, and the acceptability of digital decision support in primary craniospinal tumour research.

methodsA UK national online cross-sectional survey was conducted with 50 adults with a primary brain tumour or spinal sarcoma. The survey was developed with patient and public involvement; six patient contributors reviewed the initial questionnaire before launch. Descriptive statistics summarised closed responses, and open-text comments were grouped descriptively to contextualise quantitative findings. Reporting was informed by STROBE guidance.

resultsJust over half of participants reported being invited to donate tissue for research (26/50, 52%). Respondents strongly preferred tissue donation to be discussed at or after a clinic appointment, and none selected the day of surgery as the preferred time. Among invited respondents, most reported that information was easy to understand (22/26, 85%), that they had an opportunity to ask questions (23/25, 92%), and that they had sufficient time to consider the decision (23/26, 88%). Sixteen of 26 invited respondents (62%) discussed the decision with family or friends; among invited respondents who had not done so, 7/10 (70%) would have liked the opportunity. Interest in a secure digital adjunct was high (46/49, 94%).

conclusionOverall experience was generally positive, but the data identify specific, practical opportunities to strengthen consent support in rare craniospinal tumour pathways, including appropriate timing, clear and revisitable information, opportunities for question-asking, and resources that support family-inclusive decision-making.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsInformed ConsentSarcomaSpinal Cord NeoplasmsTissue and Organ ProcurementAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesDigital MediaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedCraniospinal tumourDigital consentInformed consentPatient experienceRare cancerTissue donation

Identifiers

PMID42470522
PMCPMC13380566

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.