Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26341349›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2016

Variation in resources needed to implement psychosocial support interventions for rural breast cancer survivors.

Maria Pisu, Karen Meneses, Andres Azuero, Rachel Benz, Xiaogang Su, Patrick McNees

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Patient-centered outcome evaluation of the Rural Breast Cancer Survivors Intervention.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.

Maria PisuDivision of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Karen MenesesSchool of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. menesesk@uab.edu.
Andres AzueroSchool of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Rachel BenzSchool of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Xiaogang SuDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA.
Patrick McNeesSchool of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Funding

Rural Breast Cancer Survivors InterventionR01CA120638 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI MENESES, KAREN M · 2007 to 2012
$2.8M
Cost Effectiveness of the Rural Breast Cancer Survivor Intervention PackageR01NR011885 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI MCNEES, MICHAEL PATRICK, MENESES, KAREN M · 2009 to 2011
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA120638NCI NIH HHS R01CA-120638-07NINR NIH HHS R01NR-01185-03NINR NIH HHS R01 NR011885
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUnderstanding how resources are used provides guidance to disseminating effective interventions. Here, we report data on implementation resources needed for the Rural Breast Cancer Survivors (RBCS) study that tested a telephone-delivered psychoeducational education and support intervention to survivors in rural Florida. Intervention resources included interventionists' time on one intake assessment (IA) call, three education calls (ED), one follow-up education call (FUE), six support (SUP) calls, and documentation time per survivor.

methodsInterventionists logged start and end times of each type of call. Average interventionist time in minutes was calculated by call type. Associations between interventionists' time and participants' characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, time since treatment, cancer treatment, depressive symptoms, education, income, employment, and support, was assessed using linear mixed models with repeated measures.

resultsAmong 328 survivors, IA calls lasted 66.9 min (SD 21.7); ED lasted 50.6 (SD 16.7), 48.1 (SD 15.9), and 39.6 (SD 14.8); FUE lasted 24.7 (SD 14.8); and SUP 42.8 (SD 29.6) min. Documentation time was 18.4 min for IA, 23-27 for ED, 12.3 for FUE, and 23.0 for SUP.

conclusionInterventionists spent significantly more time with participants with depressive symptoms, who already used other support, and who received SUP calls before the ED vs. after. There were no significant differences by time since or type of cancer treatment, or other personal characteristics. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Resources vary by survivor characteristics. Careful consideration of mental health status or support available is warranted for planning implementation and dissemination of effective survivorship interventions on a broad scale.

Indexed as

Social SupportAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHealth ResourcesHumansMiddle AgedRural PopulationSurvivorsCancer disparitiesDissemination and implementationImplementation costsRural breast cancer survivorsSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID26341349
PMCPMC4779072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.