Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23369083›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015

Cancer patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility of a supportive care screening and referral process.

Eli Ristevski, Melanie Regan, Rebecca Jones, Sibilah Breen, Angela Batson, Matthew R McGrail

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04014309 (Supportive and Survivorship Care Program for Cancer Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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.

NCT04014309 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Supportive and Survivorship Care Program for Cancer Patients: a Cluster Randomized Controlled Pilot Study Among Breast and Gynaecological Cancer Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational University of SingaporeRan2019 to 2021Enrolled226ConditionsSurvivorship, Breast Cancer, Gynecologic CancerArmsSupportive and survivorship care program, Usual care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Comparison of perceptions of unmet supportive care needs between cancer patients and their oncologists.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Indigenous cancer patient and staff attitudes towards unmet needs screening using the SCNAT-IP.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2016
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eli RistevskiDepartment of Rural and Indigenous Health, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Melanie Regan
Rebecca Jones
Sibilah Breen
Angela Batson
Matthew R McGrail
Monash University · AULatrobe Regional Hospital · AUBendigo Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncorporating supportive care into routine cancer care is an increasing priority for the multi-disciplinary team with growing evidence of its importance to patient-centred care. How to design and deliver a process which is appropriate for patients, clinicians and health services in rural areas needs further investigation.

objectiveTo (i) examine the patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility of incorporating a supportive care screening and referral process into routine cancer care in a rural setting, and (ii) explore any potential influences of patient variables on the acceptability of the process.

methodsA total of 154 cancer patients and 36 cancer clinicians across two rural areas of Victoria, Australia participated. During treatment visits, patients and clinicians participated in a supportive care process involving screening, discussion of problems, and provision of information and referrals. Structured questionnaires with open and closed questions were used to measure patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility.

resultsPatients and clinicians found the supportive care process highly acceptable. Screening identified relevant patient problems (90%) and problems that may not have otherwise been identified (83%). The patient-clinician discussion helped patients realize help was available (87%) and enhanced clinician-patient rapport (72%). Patients received useful referrals to services (76%). Feasibility issues included timing of screening for newly diagnosed patients, privacy in discussing problems, clinician time and availability of referral options. No patient demographic or disease factors influenced acceptability or feasibility.

conclusionsPatients and clinicians reported high acceptability for the supportive care process, although mechanisms for incorporating the process into health care need to be further developed.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPatient Acceptance of Health CareReferral and ConsultationAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient-Centered CareSurveys and Questionnairescancerhealth professionalimplementationpatientregionalsupportive care

Identifiers

PMID23369083
PMCPMC5060790
OpenAlexW2073629552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.