Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29483068›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2018

Input of Psychosocial Information During Multidisciplinary Team Meetings at Medical Oncology Departments: Protocol for an Observational Study.

Melissa Horlait, Simon Van Belle, Mark Leys

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Melissa HorlaitOrganisation, Policy and Social Inequalities in Health Care, Department of Health Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1899-7518
Simon Van BelleDepartment of Medical Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0979-9704
Mark LeysOrganisation, Policy and Social Inequalities in Health Care, Department of Health Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3587-4002
Vrije Universiteit Brussel · BEGhent University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) have become standard practice in oncology and gained the status of the key decision-making forum for cancer patient management. The current literature provides evidence that MDTMs are achieving their intended objectives but there are also indications to question the positive impact of MDTMs in oncology settings. For cancer management to be patient-centered, it is crucial that medical information as well as psychosocial aspects-such as the patients' living situation, possible family problems, patients' mental state, and patients' perceptions and values or preferences towards treatment or care-are considered and discussed during MDTMs. Previous studies demonstrate that failure to account for patients' psychosocial information has a negative impact on the implementation of the treatment recommendations formulated during MDTMs. Few empirical studies have demonstrated the predominant role of physicians during MDTMs, leading to the phenomenon that medical information is shared almost exclusively at the expense of psychosocial information. However, more in-depth insight on the underlying reasons why MDTMs fail to take into account psychosocial information of cancer patients is needed.

objectiveThis paper presents a research protocol for a cross-sectional observational study that will focus on exploring the barriers to considering psychosocial information during MDTMs at medical oncology departments.

methodsThis protocol encompasses a cross-sectional comparative case study of MDTMs at medical oncology departments in Flanders, Belgium. MDTMs from various oncology subspecialties at inpatient medical oncology departments in multiple hospitals (academic as well as general hospitals) are compared. The observations focus on the "multidisciplinary oncology consultation" (MOC), a formally regulated and financed type of MDTM in Belgian oncology since 2003. Data are collected through nonparticipant observations of MOC-meetings. Observational data are supplemented with semi-structured individual interviews with members of the MOC-meetings.

resultsThe protocol is part of a larger research project on communication and multidisciplinary collaboration in oncology departments. Results of this study will particularly focus on the input of psychosocial information during MDTMs.

conclusionsThe concept of an MDTM should not merely be a group of care professionals who mostly work independently and occasionally liaise with one another. Interventions aiming to enhance the input of psychosocial information are crucial to ensure that MDTMs can benefit from their diverse membership to achieve their full potential. The findings from this study can be used to design nonclinical and organizational interventions that enhance multidisciplinary decision-making in oncology.

Indexed as

health servicesmultidisciplinary collaborationmultidisciplinary communicationmultidisciplinary oncology consultationsoncologyqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID29483068
PMCPMC5847814
OpenAlexW2789208548

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.