Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19040457›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of cancer care2009

Organizational determinants of patients' experiences of care for breast, lung and colorectal cancers.

M McCarthy, P Datta, C Sherlaw-Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of cancer care, 2009. 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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Cancer patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility of a supportive care screening and referral process.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    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

3 authors.

M McCarthyUCL Department of Mathematics, University College London, London, UK. m.mccarthy@ucl.ac.uk
P Datta
C Sherlaw-Johnson

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organizational characteristics in English NHS hospitals and the experiences of patients with three common cancers - breast, colorectal and lung - were examined using secondary data analyses. Two specific measures of satisfaction, Respect and Dignity, reflecting inpatient care, and Communication reflecting hospital outpatient care, were drawn from a national survey of cancer patients after first hospital treatment. They were compared at hospital level with hospital cancer service standards, and measures of hospital provision, each drawn from national surveys. Respect and Dignity was greater in hospitals with fewer complaints, slower admission procedures and a greater proportion of medicine consultants, for breast and colorectal cancers only. For breast cancer alone, Respect and Dignity was greater in hospitals achieving more participation in meetings by lead team members at the cancer unit level. For lung cancer alone, there were tumour-specific team organizational measures (relating to outpatient assessment) associated with Communication. However, the majority of recorded standards did not show associations, and there were occasional negative associations (dissatisfaction). The impact of organizational factors on patients may be examined through observational studies when experimental designs are not possible. Understanding how organizational factors affect quality of care for cancer patients can contribute to planning and management of cancer services.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsLung NeoplasmsPatient SatisfactionCommunicationDelivery of Health CareEnglandFemaleHumansMalePatient-Centered CareProfessional-Patient RelationsQuality of Health CareState MedicineSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID19040457
PMCPMC2702007

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.