Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29552704›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2019

After Childhood Cancer: a Qualitative Study of Family Physician, Parent/Guardian, and Survivor Information Needs and Perspectives on Long-Term Follow-up and Survivorship Care Plans.

Melanie R Keats, Kelsey Shea, Louise Parker, Samuel A Stewart, Annette Flanders, Mark Bernstein

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. "I don't take for granted that I am doing well today": a mixed methods study on well-being, impact of cancer, and supportive needs in long-term childhood cancer survivors.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Article
  13. Reporting the whole story: Analysis of the 'out-of-scope' questions from the James Lind Alliance Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Priority Setting Partnership Survey.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Healthcare provider perspectives on pediatric cancer survivorship care plans: a single institution pilot study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Melanie R KeatsSchool of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie University, PO Box 15000, 6230 South Street, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada. melanie.keats@dal.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3111-5324
Kelsey SheaSchool of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie University, PO Box 15000, 6230 South Street, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada.
Louise ParkerDepartment of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Samuel A StewartDepartment of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Annette FlandersIWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Mark BernsteinDepartment of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Dalhousie University · CAIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre · CA

Funding

Cancer in Young People - Canada N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite support for the provision of a survivorship care plan (SCP) to every cancer survivor, there is a lack of understanding of the needs and preferences of key stakeholders. We examined perspectives of a novel personalized SCP for childhood cancer survivors (CCS), their family, and family physicians (FP). We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposefully selected sample of CCS, parents/guardians, and FPs. Data included responses to stakeholder cancer care information needs, concerns with or gaps in communication, the perceived role of the FP in the long-term management of CCS care, utility of the SCP, preferred format, and suggestions for improvement. A deductive content analysis was conducted. Twenty-four participants including 8 CCS, 10 parents/guardians, and 6 FPs completed an interview. Four main and several sub-categories emerged. Core categories were coded as (1) informative reference, (2) coordination of follow-up, (3) barriers to follow-up care, and (4) suggestions for improvement and future implementation. The majority of participants preferred an electronic- or web-based format. Overall, the SCP was seen as an informative and concise resource. The SCP was thought to be a valuable tool to foster communication and empower CCSs to become more fully engaged in their own cancer-related health care. FPs viewed the SCP as a useful resource to facilitate and guide the long-term management of the CCS. In addition to the treatment summary, a comprehensive follow-up timeline, personalized lifestyle information, and details on how to access additional psychosocial support were highlighted as important components.

Indexed as

Needs AssessmentAdolescentAdultCancer SurvivorsChildChild, PreschoolCommunicationContinuity of Patient CareFamily PracticeFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsChildhood cancerNeedsSurveillanceSurvivorship care plan

Identifiers

PMID29552704
OpenAlexW2792990216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.