Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23989945›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2013

Is community treatment best? a randomised trial comparing delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital, home and GP surgery.

P G Corrie, A M Moody, G Armstrong, S Nolasco, S-H Lao-Sirieix, L Bavister, A T Prevost, R Parker, R Sabes-Figuera, P McCrone and 5 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Impacts on health outcomes and on resources utilization for anticancer drugs injection at home, a complex intervention: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Decentralized Clinical Trials in Early Drug Development-A Framework Proposal.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

15 authors.

P G CorrieOncology Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
A M Moody
G Armstrong
S Nolasco
S-H Lao-Sirieix
L Bavister
A T Prevost
R Parker
R Sabes-Figuera
P McCrone
H Balsdon
K McKinnon
A Hounsell
B O'Sullivan
S Barclay

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCare closer to home is being explored as a means of improving patient experience as well as efficiency in terms of cost savings. Evidence that community cancer services improve care quality and/or generate cost savings is currently limited. A randomised study was undertaken to compare delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital with two different community settings.

methodsNinety-seven patients being offered outpatient-based cancer treatment were randomised to treatment delivered in a hospital day unit, at the patient's home or in local general practice (GP) surgeries. The primary outcome was patient-perceived benefits, using the emotional function domain of the EORTC quality of life (QOL) QLQC30 questionnaire evaluated after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional QOL measures, patient satisfaction, safety and health economics.

resultsThere was no statistically significant QOL difference between treatment in the combined community locations relative to hospital (difference of -7.2, 95% confidence interval: -19·5 to +5·2, P=0.25). There was a significant difference between the two community locations in favour of home (+15·2, 1·3 to 29·1, P=0.033). Hospital anxiety and depression scale scores were consistent with the primary outcome measure. There was no evidence that community treatment compromised patient safety and no significant difference between treatment arms in terms of overall costs or Quality Adjusted Life Year. Seventy-eight percent of patients expressed satisfaction with their treatment whatever their location, whereas 57% of patients preferred future treatment to continue at the hospital, 81% at GP surgeries and 90% at home. Although initial pre-trial interviews revealed concerns among health-care professionals and some patients regarding community treatment, opinions were largely more favourable in post-trial interviews.

interpretationPatient QOL favours delivering cancer treatment in the home rather than GP surgeries. Nevertheless, both community settings were acceptable to and preferred by patients compared with hospital, were safe, with no detrimental impact on overall health-care costs.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareFemaleHome Care ServicesHospitalizationHumansMaleNeoplasmsPatient SatisfactionQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID23989945
PMCPMC3776975

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.