ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2011
Improving cancer control in Canada one case at a time: the "Knowledge Translation in Cancer" casebook.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development, characteristics and impact of quality improvement casebooks: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Documenting coordination of cancer care between primary care providers and oncology specialists in Canada.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2016Article
- Disseminating policy and environmental change interventions: insights from obesity prevention and tobacco control.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2015Article
- Improving cancer control in Canada through knowledge translation: from in-the-field projects to policy initiatives in a new standing section in Current Oncology.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn-the-field projects aiming to improve quality in cancer control provide a valuable complement to health services and knowledge translation (kt) research studies. The present paper describes the methods used to develop the Knowledge Translation for Cancer Control in Canada: A Casebook and its results.
methodsNominations for in-the-field projects were accepted from individuals and organizations across Canada. The nominations had to demonstrate that a specific cancer control problem was identified; that a deliberate and organized effort was developed and implemented to address the identified problem; and that an evaluation-formal or informal-was used to assess the effort. A selection of nominated cases were chosen for more comprehensive analysis.
resultsThirty nominations were received. Most tackled problems related to treatment or diagnosis. Challenges related to breast, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary cancer were most common among the disease-specific projects, and most projects were regional in scope, with strategies targeting organizational solutions. Of the 30 nominations, 19 were chosen for further analysis. Of those 19, 5 were influenced by a kt model or theory, and 16 reported formal evaluation strategies. Surveys were the most common evaluation method, and process outcomes and clinical surrogate outcomes were the most frequently cited. Financial and administrative challenges were most often cited as key barriers. The key lessons learned concerned the need for a collaborative high-functioning team, project management, and support.
conclusionsThe casebook provides tangible examples of in-the-field efforts to improve cancer control and provides practical direction for other individuals and institutions facing similar challenges. We discuss the interface between field projects and research projects in the kt arena and how mutual learning can help to optimize the value of each approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.