Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27530996›Full record

Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017

A tiered multidisciplinary approach to the psychosocial care of adult cancer patients integrated into routine care: the PROMPT study (a cluster-randomised controlled trial).

Jane Turner, Brian Kelly, David Clarke, Patsy Yates, Sanchia Aranda, Damien Jolley, Andrew Forbes, Suzanne Chambers, Maryanne Hargraves, Lisa Mackenzie

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Jane TurnerSchool of Medicine, University of Queensland and Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. jane.turner@uq.edu.au.
Brian KellyUniversity of Newcastle and John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, Australia.
David ClarkeMonash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Patsy YatesInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Sanchia ArandaCancer Institute New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Damien JolleySchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Andrew ForbesDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Suzanne ChambersMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Maryanne HargravesICON Cancer Services, Brisbane, Australia.
Lisa MackenzieSchool of Medicine, University of Queensland and Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Monash University · AUQueensland University of Technology · AUUniversity of Queensland · AUGriffith University · AUJohn Hunter Hospital · AUMonash Medical Centre · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a brief psychosocial intervention for depressed cancer patients, delivered by trained front-line health professionals in routine clinical care.

methodsNine hundred two patients were assessed across four treatment centres which were allocated in random order from control epoch to intervention epoch. Eligible patients had Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores of 8 or greater. Of eligible patients, 222 were recruited in control epoch and 247 in intervention epoch. Twenty-seven health professionals (HPs) were trained to deliver the psychosocial intervention consisting of up to four sessions, tailored to patient symptoms and distress. HPs participated in group supervision with a psychiatrist. The primary outcome, analysed by intention to treat, was depression measured with the HADS at 10 weeks after receiving the intervention.

resultsAt 10-week follow-up, there were no significant differences in HADS score for the 181 patients in control epoch and 177 in intervention epoch (adjusted difference -1.23, 95 % CI -3.81--1.35, p = 0.35). Patients with disease progression who received the intervention experienced significant benefits in unmet practical support needs including care and support, information, and physical and daily living.

conclusionA brief psychosocial intervention delivered by front-line oncology health professionals is feasible to deliver but is insufficient as a stand-alone treatment for depression in cancer patients. Psychosocial interventions should be targeted to populations most likely to experience benefit.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPsychotherapyQuality of LifeCancerDepressionDistressPsychosocialTrainingTreatment

Identifiers

PMID27530996
OpenAlexW2507699897

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.