Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30853804›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2019

Factors associated with receipt of symptom screening in the year after cancer diagnosis in a universal health care system: a retrospective cohort study.

A L Mahar, L E Davis, L D Bubis, Q Li, R Sutradhar, N G Coburn, L Barbera

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Cancer-related care for rural and remote populations in Canada: A scoping review.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Diagnostic timelines and self-reported symptoms of patients with lung and gastrointestinal cancers undergoing radiation therapy. Retrospective case control study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

A L MaharDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB.
L E DavisEvaluative Clinical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON.
L D BubisInstitute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Q LiICES, Toronto, ON.
R SutradharEvaluative Clinical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON.
N G CoburnEvaluative Clinical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON.
L BarberaEvaluative Clinical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON.
Sunnybrook Health Science Centre · CASunnybrook Research InstituteUniversity of Manitoba · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Patient-reported symptom data are collected prospectively by a provincial cancer agency to mitigate the significant symptom burden that patients with cancer experience. However, an assessment of whether such symptom screening occurs uniformly for those patients has yet to be performed. In the present study, we investigated patient, disease, and health system factors associated with receipt of symptom screening in the year after a cancer diagnosis. Methods: Patients diagnosed with cancer between 2007 and 2014 were identified. We measured whether 1 or more symptom screenings were recorded in the year after diagnosis. A multivariable modified Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to identify predictors [age, comorbidity, rurality, socioeconomic status, immigration status, cancer site, registration at a regional cancer centre (cc), and year of diagnosis] of being screened for symptoms. Results: Of 425,905 patients diagnosed with cancer, 163,610 (38%) had 1 or more symptom screening records in the year after diagnosis, and 75% survived at least 1 year. We identified variability in symptom screening by primary cancer site, regional cc, age, sex, comorbidity, material deprivation, rurality of residence, and immigration status. Patients who had been diagnosed with melanoma or endocrine cancers, who were not registered at a regional cc, who lived in the most urban areas, who were elderly, and who were immigrants were least likely to undergo symptom screening after diagnosis. Conclusions: Our evaluation of the implementation of a population-based symptom screening program in a universal health care system identified populations who are at risk for not receiving screening and who are therefore future targets for improvements in population symptom screening and better management of cancer-related symptoms at diagnosis.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresUniversal Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsPatient-reported outcomessymptom screeninguniversal health care systems

Identifiers

PMID30853804
PMCPMC6380655
OpenAlexW2916745828

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.