Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29558917›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2018

Partnering with families to promote nutrition in cancer care: feasibility and acceptability of the PIcNIC intervention.

Alex Molassiotis, Shelley Roberts, Hui Lin Cheng, Henry K F To, Po Shan Ko, Wang Lam, Yuk Fong Lam, Jessica Abbott, Deborah Kiefer, Jasotha Sanmugarajah and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Alex MolassiotisSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong. alex.molasiotis@polyu.edu.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6351-9991
Shelley RobertsNational Centre of Research Excellence in Nursing, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Cost, Australia.
Hui Lin ChengSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong.
Henry K F ToSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong.
Po Shan KoDepartment of Medicine, Haven of Hope Hospital, Tseung Kwan O, Hong Kong.
Wang LamDietetics Department, Haven of Hope Hospital, Tseung Kwan O, Hong Kong.
Yuk Fong LamDepartment of Medicine, Haven of Hope Hospital, Tseung Kwan O, Hong Kong.
Jessica AbbottGold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Health, Southport, Australia.
Deborah KieferGold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Health, Southport, Australia.
Jasotha SanmugarajahGold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Health, Southport, Australia.
Andrea P MarshallNational Centre of Research Excellence in Nursing, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Cost, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalnutrition is frequent in patients with cancer, particularly those in advanced stages of the disease. The aim of the present study was to test the feasibility of a family-centred nutritional intervention, based on the Family Systems theory and past research.

methodsThis was a single-arm trial assessing feasibility (eligibility, recruitment and retention rates); acceptability by patients, family caregivers and health professionals; intervention fidelity, and energy/protein intake (in one site only). Two sites were involved; one each in Australia (AUS) and Hong Kong (HK), with one site delivering the intervention to oncology patients receiving curative treatments in the hospital, and the other to advanced cancer patients in the home.

resultsThe sample included 53 patients (23 from AUS and 30 from HK), 22 caregivers (3 from AUS and 19 from HK) and 30 health professionals (20 from AUS and 10 from HK). Recruitment was difficult in the acute inpatient oncology care setting (AUS) and feasibility criteria were not met. Sufficient recruitment took place in the home care setting with advanced cancer patients in HK. Patients, family members and health professionals found the intervention helpful and acceptable, and patients and families indicated they would take part in the future in a similar study. Energy and protein intake improved from baseline to end of intervention (mean 22 kcal/kg/day to 26 and 0.9 g/kg/day to 1.0 respectively).

conclusionThe new intervention is feasible in a home setting when delivered to patients with advanced cancer, acceptable to patients and families, and has the potential to improve nutritional status in patients. A large randomised trial is warranted in the future.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaFamilyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMalnutritionMiddle AgedNeoplasmsNutritional Physiological PhenomenaAdvanced cancerEating-related distressEnergyFamily caregiverInterventionNutritionProtein

Identifiers

PMID29558917
PMCPMC5859412

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.