Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30607112›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2018

Oncology communities of practice: insights from a qualitative analysis.

W Fingrut, L A Beck, D Lo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

W FingrutFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
L A BeckFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
D LoFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
University of Toronto · CASt Joseph's Health Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A community of practice (cop) is formally defined as a group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and who learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. Communities of practice represent a promising approach for improving cancer care outcomes. However, little research is available to guide the development of oncology cops. In 2015, our urban community hospital launched an oncology cop, with the goals of decreasing barriers to access, fostering collaboration, and improving practitioner knowledge of guidelines and services in cancer care. Here, we share insights from a qualitative analysis of feedback from participants in our cop. The objective of the project was to identify participant perspectives about preferred cop features, with a view to improving the quality of our community hospital's oncology cop. Methods: After 5 in-person meetings of our oncology cop, participants were surveyed about what the cop should start, stop, and continue doing. Qualitative methods were used to analyze the feedback. Results: The survey collected 250 comments from 117 unique cop participants, including family physicians, specialist physicians, nurses, and allied health care practitioners. Analysis identified participant perspectives about the key features of the cop and avenues for improvement across four themes: supporting knowledge exchange, identifying and addressing practice gaps, enhancing interprofessional collaboration, and fostering a culture of partnership. Conclusions: Based on the results, we identified several considerations that could be helpful in improving our cop. Our findings might help guide the development of oncology cops at other institutions.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesMedical OncologyAgedCooperative BehaviorHealth Care SurveysHumansMiddle AgedOncology Service, HospitalPartnership PracticeQualitative ResearchQuality of Health CarecollaborationCommunities of practiceknowledge managementknowledge preservationpartnershipsquality

Identifiers

PMID30607112
PMCPMC6291282
OpenAlexW2905473249

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.