ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2018
Alberta CancerBridges development of a care plan evaluation measure.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo standardized measures specifically assess cancer survivors' and healthcare providers' experience of Survivor Care Plans (scps). We sought to develop two care plan evaluation (cpe) measures, one for survivors (cpe-s) and one for healthcare providers (cpe-p), examine initial psychometric qualities in Alberta, and assess generalizability in Manitoba, Canada.
methodsWe developed the initial measures using convenience samples of breast (
resultsWe demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for the cpe-s and cpe-p subscales and total score after eliminating one item per subscale for cpe-s, two for cpe-p, resulting in revised scales with four 7-item and 6-item subscales, respectively. Subscale scores correlated highly indicating that for each measure the total score may be the most reliable and valid. We provide initial cpe-s discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity using the total score. Using the Manitoba sample, initial psychometrics similarly indicated good generalizability across differences in tumour groups, scp, and location.
conclusionsWe recommend the revised cpe-s and cpe-p for further use and development. Studies documenting the creation and standardization of scp evaluations are few, and we recommend further development of patient experience measures to improve both clinical practice and the specificity of research questions.
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.