Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2013
Is community treatment best? a randomised trial comparing delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital, home and GP surgery.
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Delivery of intravenous anti-cancer therapy at home versus in hospital or community settings for adults with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Dimensions and components of hospital-at-home care: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- 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 · 2021Pooled it
- Randomised trials comparing different healthcare settings: an exploratory review of the impact of pre-trial preferences on participation, and discussion of other methodological challenges.BMC health services research · 2016Pooled it
- Administering Antineoplastic Parenteral Cancer Therapy in the Patient's Home: Perspectives of Oncology Nurses-A Descriptive Qualitative Study.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Enhanced Telehealth in Prostate Cancer.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Insights From a User Experience-Focused Virtual Study on the Feasibility and Challenges of Decentralized Clinical Trials.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- The Importance of Honoring Family Caregiver Burden: Challenges in Mental Health Care Delivery.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2025Article
- Decentralized Clinical Trials in Early Drug Development-A Framework Proposal.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2024Review
- Citizens' perspectives on relocating care: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- National expert consensus on home-administered oncologic therapies in Spain.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Fit for Duty: Lessons Learned from Outpatient and Homebound Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation to Prepare Family Caregivers for Home-Based Care.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2023Article
- "It's a part of the patient": The experiences of patients with cancer undergoing home-based chemotherapy from patients' and nurses' perspectives.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2022Article
- Evaluation of adverse events and health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer receiving ambulatory home-based chemotherapy in Thailand.Nursing open · 2021Observational
- Patient Navigator in cancer care-A specialized oncology nurse role that contributes to high-quality, person-centred care experiences and clinical efficiencies.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2020Article
- Article
- Outpatient Cancer Care Delivery in the Context of E-Oncology: A French Perspective on "Cancer outside the Hospital Walls".Cancers · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.