ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2018
Building an oncology community of practice to improve cancer care.
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. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The aims and effectiveness of communities of practice in healthcare: A systematic review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Primary care provider-led cancer survivorship care in the first 5 years following initial cancer treatment: a scoping review of the barriers and solutions to implementation.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024Article
- Factors That Affect Knowledge-Sharing Behaviors in Medical Imaging Departments in Cancer Centers: Systematic Review.JMIR human factors · 2023Review
- Curricular Interventions in Medical Schools: Maximizing Community Engagement Through Communities of Practice.Annals of family medicine · 2023Article
- Core components of a Community of Practice to improve community health worker performance: a qualitative study.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Needs assessment for the creation of a community of practice in a community health navigator cohort.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Overcoming Disparities in Cancer: A Need for Meaningful Reform for Hispanic and Latino Cancer Survivors.The oncologist · 2021Review
- The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Rectal Cancer Project: Protocol for a Pan-Canadian, Multidisciplinary Quality Improvement Initiative to Optimize the Quality of Rectal Cancer Care.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
- Oncology communities of practice: insights from a qualitative analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Communities of practice (cops) have been shown to be effective models for achieving quality outcomes in health care. Objective: Here, we describe the application of the cop model to the Canadian oncology context. Methods: We established an oncology cop at our urban community hospital and its networks. Goals were to decrease barriers to access, foster collaboration, and improve knowledge of guidelines in cancer care. We hosted 6 in-person multidisciplinary meetings, focusing on screening, diagnosis, and management of common solid tumours. Health care providers affiliated with our hospital were invited to attend and to complete post-meeting surveys. Likert scales assessed whether cop goals were realized. Results: Meetings attracted a mean of 57 attendees (range: 48-65 attendees), with a mean of 84% completing the surveys and consenting to the analysis. Attendees included family physicians (mean: 41%), specialist physicians (mean: 24%), nurses (mean: 10%), and allied health care providers (mean: 22%). Repeat attendance increased during the series, with 85% of attendees at the final meeting having attended 1 or more prior meetings. Across the series, most participants agreed or strongly agreed that the cop reduced barriers (mean: 76.0% ± 7.9%) and improved access to cancer care services (mean: 82.4% ± 8.1%) and subject matter experts (mean: 91.7% ± 4.2%); fostered teamwork (mean: 84.5% ± 6.8%) and a culture of collaboration (mean: 94.8% ± 4.2%); improved knowledge of cancer care services (mean: 93.3% ± 4.8%), standards of practice (mean: 92.3% ± 3.1%), and quality indicators (mean: 77.5% ± 6.3%); and improved cancer-related practice (mean: 88.8% ± 4.6%) and satisfaction in caring for cancer patients (mean: 82.9% ± 6.8%). Participant feedback carried a potential for bias. Conclusions: We demonstrated the feasibility of oncology cops and found that participants perceived their value in reducing barriers to access, fostering collaboration, and improving knowledge of guidelines in cancer care.
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.