ReviewThe Lancet. Oncology2017
Evaluation of effectiveness of survivorship programmes: how to measure success?
Review in The Lancet. Oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic factors for mental wellbeing in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Psycho-oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of a Multidisciplinary Supportive Care Model Using Distress Screening at an Asian Ambulatory Cancer Center: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.JCO oncology practice · 2024Trial
- Phase III study of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life cancer survivorship core questionnaire.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2023Trial
- Mental well-being in prostate cancer: A multi-institutional prospective cohort study.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a prediction model for frailty in breast cancer patients with extended survival.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Myths and Presumptions About Cancer Survivorship.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024Article
- Health-related Quality of Life in Elderly Asian American and Non-Hispanic White Cancer Survivors.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2023Article
- Effectiveness and implementation of models of cancer survivorship care: an overview of systematic reviews.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2023Review
- Mental wellbeing and quality of life in prostate cancer (MIND-P): Protocol for a multi-institutional prospective cohort study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Undergoing radical treatment for prostate cancer and its impact on wellbeing: A qualitative study exploring men's experiences.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- The development and implementation of the After Cancer Treatment Transition (ACTT) Program for survivors of cancer.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2022Article
- Defining a patient-centered approach to cancer survivorship care: development of the patient centered survivorship care index (PC-SCI).BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Dissemination of cancer survivorship care plans: who is being left out?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Patterns of Sequelae in Women with a History of Localized Breast Cancer: Results from the French VICAN Survey.Cancers · 2021Article
- Cost of survivorship care and adherence to screening-aligning the priorities of health care systems and survivors.Translational behavioral medicine · 2021Article
- The changing landscape of cancer in the USA - opportunities for advancing prevention and treatment.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2020Review
- Association between perception of care coordination and health outcomes in Korean cancer survivors.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2020Article
- A model of cancer survivorship care within a community health setting: the Good Life Cancer Survivorship program.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the number of cancer survivors has increased substantially in the past two decades, the evidence base regarding the effectiveness of cancer survivorship programmes is inadequate. Survivorship programmes tend to evaluate their effectiveness by assessing changes in patient-reported outcomes, symptoms and health status, knowledge, and receipt of cancer surveillance in programme participants. However, more comprehensive and high-quality evaluations of survivorship programmes are needed, including assessments using a broader set of measures. These expanded evaluations can include assessments of programme structure; long-term outcomes, such as survival, quality-adjusted life-years, and functional status; receipt of social support, nutritional, rehabilitative, and fertility preservation services; programme value, including costs and avoidance of inappropriate resource utilisation; and ability of programmes to increase access to needed survivorship care services and health equity. In this Series paper, we provide examples of assessment measures for currently used survivorship programmes, discuss the rationale for and potential benefits of expanded types of evaluation measures, and identify how these measures correspond to several evaluation frameworks. We conclude that use of a common, expanded set of measures to facilitate broad comparisons across survivorship programmes and thorough and systematic evaluations will help to identify the optimal programmes for individual survivors, improve outcomes, and prove the value of survivorship care.
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.