Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30765405›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Identifying priorities for cancer caregiver interventions: protocol for a three-round modified Delphi study.

Sarah-May Blaschke, Sylvie D Lambert, Patricia M Livingston, Sanchia Aranda, Anna Boltong, Penelope Schofield, Suzanne K Chambers, Meinir Krishnasamy, Anna Ugalde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Sarah-May BlaschkeDepartment of Cancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sylvie D LambertIngram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Patricia M LivingstonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Sanchia ArandaCancer Council Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anna BoltongVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Penelope SchofieldDepartment of Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.
Suzanne K ChambersFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Meinir KrishnasamyVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Anna UgaldeSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2473-8435

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCancer is often considered a chronic disease, and most people with cancer have a caregiver, often a family member or friend who provides a significant amount of care during the illness trajectory. Caregivers are frequently in need of support, and a range of interventions have been trialled to improve outcomes. Consensus for optimal ways to support caregivers is not known. The aim of this protocol paper is to describe procedures for a modified Delphi study to explore expert consensus about important factors when developing caregiver interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Online modified Delphi methodology will be used to establish consensus for important caregiver intervention factors incorporating the Patient problem, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome framework. Round 1 will comprise a free-text questionnaire and invite the panel to contribute factors they deem important in the development and evaluation of caregiver interventions. Round 2 is designed to determine preliminary consensus of the importance of factors generated in round 1. The panel will be asked to rate each factor using a 4-point Likert-type scale. The option for panellists to state reasoning for their rating will be provided. Descriptive statistics (median scores and IQR) will be calculated to determine each item's relative importance. Levels of consensus will be assessed based on a predefined consensus rating matrix. In round 3, factors will be recirculated including aggregate group responses (statistics and comment summaries) and panellists' own round 2 scores. Panellists will be invited to reconsider their judgements and resubmit ratings using the same rating system as in round 2. This will result in priority lists based on the panel's total rating scores. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics for this study has been gained from the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group. It is anticipated that the results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented in a variety of forums.

Indexed as

Health PrioritiesSurveys and QuestionnairesCaregiversConsensusDelphi TechniqueHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansNeoplasmsResearch DesignSocial Supportcancercaregiverdelphiintervention

Identifiers

PMID30765405
PMCPMC6398770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.