ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2019
How oncology teams can be patient-centred? opportunities for theoretical improvement through an empirical examination.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fostering Physician-Patient Partnerships: The Importance of Embracing the Ontological and Epistemological Understandings of Knowledge.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Review
- Article
- Factors related to implementation of an interprofessional communication concept in thoracic oncology: a mixed-methods study.BMC palliative care · 2022Article
- How oncology teams can be patient-centred? opportunities for theoretical improvement through an empirical examination.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the context of interprofessional practice, a patient-centred approach is recommended, which generally means power-sharing, shared decision making and involving patients as part of the health-care team. These aspects, which are essential to "patient-centred" practice, do not appear to be sufficient to illustrate the full richness of this practice.
objectiveThis article aimed to understand how interprofessional patient-centred (IPPC) practice in oncology teams contributes to creating a more positive experience for patients. Objectives were to (a) describe the IPPC practice of oncology teams using the IPPC Practice Framework; (b) determine the usefulness of this framework; and (c) offer alternative proposals for expanding our understanding of IPPC practice.
designA secondary analysis was performed with data from a multicase study designed to explore the effects of interdisciplinary work among oncology teams. Data were provided from six focus groups with professionals (n = 22) and patients diagnosed with cancer (n = 16). An iterative content analysis was performed.
resultsApplying the theoretical framework to data analysis enabled us to distinguish between the IPPC practice of the different teams and structure the data collected in order to show the processes and place them in context. However, it proved to be difficult to describe the central component of the theoretical framework, patient-centred processes. This situation raises new hypotheses for representing practice in a real-life context. An alternative perspective for illustrating IPPC practice is therefore proposed.
conclusionThis study emphasizes the importance of exploring the utility of theoretical frameworks and refining them in order to broaden our understanding of IPPC practice.
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.