Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21505598›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2011

Improving cancer control in Canada one case at a time: the "Knowledge Translation in Cancer" casebook.

M C Brouwers, J Makarski, K Garcia, S Bouseh, T Hafid

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

M C BrouwersMcMaster University, Hamilton, ON.
J Makarski
K Garcia
S Bouseh
T Hafid

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cancer controlcasebookKnowledge translationpracticeresearch

Identifiers

PMID21505598
PMCPMC3070706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.