ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2017
Development and pre-testing of a rehabilitation planning consultation for head-and-neck cancer.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fulfillment of patients' information needs during oral cancer treatment and its association with posttherapeutic quality of life.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Content analysis of rehabilitation goals for patients following non-surgical head and neck cancer treatment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Article
- Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care: A Review of the Current Guidelines and Remaining Unmet Needs.Current treatment options in oncology · 2018Review
- Engaging stakeholders in the co-development of programs or interventions using Intervention Mapping: A scoping review.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn contrast with other major chronic conditions such as heart disease and stroke, cancer care does not routinely integrate evidence-based rehabilitation services within the standard continuum. The objectives of the present project were to develop a rehabilitation planning consultation (rpc) for survivors of head-and-neck (hn) cancer, to test its feasibility, and to make refinements.
methodsUsing intervention mapping, the rpc-alpha was developed by examining potential theoretical methods and practical applications relative to the program objectives. During feasibility testing, a single case series was conducted with survivors of hn cancer who had completed their cancer treatment within the preceding 11 months; iterative refinements were made after each case.
resultsThe rpc-alpha was led by a rehabilitation professional and was based on self-management principles. The initial consultation included instruction in a global cognitive strategy, goal-setting, introduction to available resources, action planning, and coping planning. A follow-up consultation was conducted a few weeks later. Of 9 participants recruited, 5 completed post-intervention assessments. Participants reported that the rpc helped them to make rehabilitation plans.
conclusionsThe rpc was feasible to use and satisfactory to a small group of hn cancer survivors. A pilot test of the refined version is in process.
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.