Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12942111›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2003

Providing cancer services to remote and rural areas: consensus study.

L Stevenson, N C Campbell, P A Kiehlmann

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Cancer care in rural areas.British journal of cancer · 2004
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

L StevensonDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Health Centre, Aberdeen AB25 2AY, UK.
N C Campbell
P A Kiehlmann

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is controversy about how cancer care should be provided to patients in remote and rural areas. The aim of this project was to measure consensus among health professionals who treat rural patients with cancer about priorities for cancer care. A modified Delphi process was used. Of 78 health professionals in Grampian, 62 responded (79%). Of 49 items suggested, there was agreement on 26 (53%), encompassing fast access to diagnosis, high-quality specialist treatment, and well-coordinated delivery of care with good and fast communication and effective team working between all health professionals involved. Specialist oncology nurses in local hospitals were considered a priority along with good facilities, accommodation, and transport for patients. There was no agreement on the best location for chemotherapy (local or central). The only large difference of opinion between participants based in primary and secondary care concerned chemotherapy provision at local community hospitals (primary care was in favour, hospital practitioners against, P&<0.001). In making their decisions, participants took problems of access into account, but were also concerned with quality of care and feasibility in the current health service. Our findings show that more evidence is needed regarding the balance of risks and benefits of local chemotherapy provision. Overall, however, there is agreement on many principles for cancer care that could be translated into practice.

Indexed as

ConsensusHealth Services AccessibilityQuality of Health CareAttitude of Health PersonnelCommunicationDrug TherapyHealth PersonnelHospitals, CommunityHumansNeoplasmsPrimary Health CareRural Health ServicesScotland

Identifiers

PMID12942111
PMCPMC2394474

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.