Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31309296›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020

"All boats will rise": Physicians' perspectives on multidisciplinary lung cancer care in a community-based hospital setting.

Satish K Kedia, Kenneth D Ward, Andy C Collins, Bianca M Jackson, Fedoria Rugless Stewart, Nicholas R Faris, Kristina S Roark, Raymond U Osarogiagbon

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020. 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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Quality indicators and excellence requirements for a multidisciplinary lung cancer tumor board by the Spanish Lung Cancer Group.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Satish K KediaDivision of Social & Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA. skkedia@memphis.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7114-5843
Kenneth D WardDivision of Social & Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA.
Andy C CollinsDivision of Social & Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA.
Bianca M JacksonMultidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
Fedoria Rugless StewartMultidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
Nicholas R FarisMultidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
Kristina S RoarkMultidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
Raymond U OsarogiagbonMultidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, TN, USA.

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute IH-1304-6147
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe explored the perceived strengths, barriers to implementation, and suggestions for sustainable implementation of a multidisciplinary model within a community-based hospital system from the physicians' perspectives.

methodsWe conducted 9 focus groups with 37 physicians involved in the care of lung cancer patients. Grounded theory methodology guided the identification of recurrent themes that emerged from the qualitative data analysis.

resultsThe majority of study participants agreed that the multidisciplinary model could benefit patients by promoting high quality, efficient, and well-coordinated care. Co-location, financial disincentives, and time constraints were identified as major deterrents to full participation in a multidisciplinary clinic. Other perceived challenges were the integration of a multidisciplinary care model into the existing healthcare system, maintenance of referral streams, and designation of the physician primarily responsible for a patient's care. Educating physicians about the availability of a multidisciplinary clinic, establishing efficient processes for initial consultations, implementing technology for virtual participation, and using a nurse navigator with reliable closed-loop communication were suggested to improve the implementation of the multidisciplinary model.

conclusionsPhysicians generally agreed that the multidisciplinary model could improve lung cancer care, but they perceived significant personal, institutional, and system-level barriers that need to be addressed for its successful implementation in a community healthcare setting.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesFocus GroupsPatient Care TeamPerceptionPhysiciansAdultDelivery of Health CareHospitals, CommunityHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationLung NeoplasmsReferral and ConsultationSurveys and QuestionnairesLung cancerMultidisciplinary modelPhysicians’ perspectivesQualitative methodsQuality of care

Identifiers

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.