Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28927389›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2017

Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: protocol for an evaluation of a nurse-led supported self-management and remote surveillance programme.

Jane Frankland, Hazel Brodie, Deborah Cooke, Claire Foster, Rebecca Foster, Heather Gage, Jake Jordan, Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray, Ruth Pickering, Alison Richardson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2017. 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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Exploring the experiences of patients, general practitioners and oncologists of prostate cancer follow-up: A qualitative interview study.European journal of oncology nursing : the official journal of European Oncology Nursing Society · 2020
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Jane FranklandFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. j.l.frankland@soton.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3813-8879
Hazel BrodieFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Deborah CookeFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK.
Claire FosterFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Rebecca FosterFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Heather GageSchool of Economics, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK.
Jake JordanSchool of Economics, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK.
Ines Mesa-EguiagarayUsher Institute of Population Health, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.
Ruth PickeringMedical Statistics Group, University of Southampton, Faculty of Medicine, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Alison RichardsonFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs more men survive a diagnosis of prostate cancer, alternative models of follow-up care that address men's enduring unmet needs and are economical to deliver are needed. This paper describes the protocol for an ongoing evaluation of a nurse-led supported self-management and remote surveillance programme implemented within the secondary care setting. METHODS/

designThe evaluation is taking place within a real clinical setting, comparing the outcomes of men enrolled in the Programme with the outcomes of a pre-service change cohort of men, using a repeated measures design. Men are followed up at four and 8 months post recruitment on a number of outcomes, including quality of life, unmet need, psychological wellbeing and activation for self-management. An embedded health economic analysis and qualitative evaluation of implementation processes are being undertaken. DISCUSSION: The evaluation will provide important information regarding the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and implementation of an integrated supported self-management follow-up care pathway within secondary care.

Indexed as

AftercareClinical ProtocolsEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansMaleNursesProstatic NeoplasmsQuality of LifeSecondary Care CentersSelf CareFollow-up careNurse-ledProstate cancerRemote surveillanceSelf-management supportSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID28927389
PMCPMC5606080

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.