ArticleJournal of palliative medicine2018
Feasibility and Acceptability of a Best Supportive Care Checklist among Clinicians.
Article in Journal of palliative medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Basic social resource needs screening in the gynecologic oncology clinic: a quality improvement initiative.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2020Article
- Feasibility and Acceptability of a Best Supportive Care Checklist among Clinicians.Journal of palliative medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextBest supportive care (BSC) is often not standardized across sites, consistent with best evidence, or sufficiently described. We developed a consensus-based checklist to document BSC delivery, including symptom management, decision making, and care planning. We hypothesized that BSC can be feasibly documented with this checklist consistent with consolidated standards of reporting trials.
objectiveTo determine feasibility/acceptability of a BSC checklist among clinicians.
methodsTo test feasibility of a BSC checklist in standard care, we enrolled a sample of clinicians treating patients with advanced cancer at four centers. Clinicians were asked to complete the checklist at eligible patient encounters. We surveyed enrollees regarding checklist use generating descriptive statistics and frequencies.
resultsWe surveyed 15 clinicians and 9 advanced practice providers. Mean age was 41 (SD = 7.9). Mean years since fellowship for physicians was 7.2 (SD = 4.5). Represented specialties are medical oncology (n = 8), gynecologic oncology (n = 4), palliative care (n = 2), and other (n = 1). For "overall impact on your delivery of supportive/palliative care," 40% noted improved impact with using BSC. For "overall impact on your documentation of supportive/palliative care," 46% noted improvement. Impact on "frequency of comprehensive symptom assessment" was noted to be "increased" by 33% of providers. None noted decreased frequency or worsening impact on any measure with use of BSC. Regarding feasibility of integrating the checklist into workflow, 73% agreed/strongly agreed that checklists could be easily integrated, 73% saw value in integration, and 80% found it easy to use.
conclusionClinicians viewed the BSC checklist favorably illustrating proof of concept, minor workflow impact, and potential of benefit to patients.
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.