Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27000152›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2016

Understanding cancer networks better to implement them more effectively: a mixed methods multi-case study.

Dominique Tremblay, Nassera Touati, Danièle Roberge, Mylaine Breton, Geneviève Roch, Jean-Louis Denis, Bernard Candas, Danièle Francoeur

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Dominique TremblayCentre de recherche - Hôpital Charles-Le Moyne, Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Montérégie-Centre, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, J4K 0A8, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada. dominique.tremblay2@usherbrooke.ca.
Nassera TouatiÉcole nationale d'administration publique, 4750 Henri-Julien Avenue, 5th Floor, H2T 3E5, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Danièle RobergeCentre de recherche - Hôpital Charles-Le Moyne, Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Montérégie-Centre, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, J4K 0A8, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada.
Mylaine BretonCentre de recherche - Hôpital Charles-Le Moyne, Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Montérégie-Centre, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, J4K 0A8, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada.
Geneviève RochFaculty of Nursing, Université Laval, Pavillon Ferdinand-Vandry, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, G1V 0A6, Quebec, Quebec, Canada.
Jean-Louis DenisÉcole nationale d'administration publique, 4750 Henri-Julien Avenue, 5th Floor, H2T 3E5, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Bernard CandasInstitut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux, 2535, boulevard Laurier, 5e étage, Quebec, G1V 4M3, Quebec, Canada.
Danièle FrancoeurInstitut national de santé publique du Québec, 190 Crémazie Blvd. East, 2nd Floor, H2P 1E2, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundManaged cancer networks are widely promoted in national cancer control programs as an organizational form that enables integrated care as well as enhanced patient outcomes. While national programs are set by policy-makers, the detailed implementation of networks is delegated at the service delivery and institutional levels. It is likely that the capacity to ensure more integrated cancer services requires multi-level governance processes responsive to the strengths and limitations of the contexts and capable of supporting network-based working. Based on an empirical case, this study aims to analyze the implementation of a mandated cancer network, focusing on governance and health services integration as core concepts in the study. METHODS/

designThis nested multi-case study uses mixed methods to explore the implementation of a mandated cancer network in Quebec, a province of Canada. The case is the National Cancer Network (NCN) subdivided into three micro-cases, each defined by the geographic territory of a health and social services region. For each region, two local health services centers (LHSCs) are selected based on their differences with respect to determining characteristics. Qualitative data will be collected from various sources using three strategies: review of documents, focus groups, and semi-directed interviews with stakeholders. The qualitative data will be supplemented with a survey that will measure the degree of integration as a proxy for implementation of the NCN. A score will be constructed, and then triangulated with the qualitative data, which will have been subjected to content analysis. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods data will be interpreted within and across cases in order to identify governance patterns similarities and differences and degree of integration in contexts. DISCUSSION: This study is designed to inform decision-making to develop more effective network implementation strategies by thoroughly describing multi-level governance processes of a sample of settings that provide cancer services. Although the study focuses on the implementation of a cancer network in Quebec, the rich descriptions of multiple nested cases will generate data with a degree of generalizability for health-care systems in developed countries.

Indexed as

Efficiency, OrganizationalNeoplasmsDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedFocus GroupsHumansProgram EvaluationQuebecSocial WorkSurveys and QuestionnairesCancerCase studyGovernanceHealth-care integrationImplementationMixed methodsNetwork

Identifiers

PMID27000152
PMCPMC4802906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.