Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31745819›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2020

Process evaluation of a tailored work-related support intervention for patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal cancer.

AnneClaire G N M Zaman, Kristien M A J Tytgat, Jean H G Klinkenbijl, Angela G E M de Boer, Monique H W Frings-Dresen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Introduction to special section on: current topics in cancer survivorship and work.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2020
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

AnneClaire G N M ZamanAmsterdam UMC, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.c.zaman@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-9746-8483
Kristien M A J TytgatAmsterdam UMC, Department of Gastroenterology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jean H G KlinkenbijlDepartment of Surgery, Gelre Hospitals, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands.
Angela G E M de BoerAmsterdam UMC, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Monique H W Frings-DresenAmsterdam UMC, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Netherlands Center for Occupational Diseases · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLGelre Hospitals · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo perform a process evaluation of a tailored work-related support intervention for patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal cancer.

methodsThe intervention comprised three tailored psychosocial work-related support meetings. To outline the process evaluation of this intervention, we used six key components: recruitment, context, reach, dose delivered, dose received and fidelity. Data were collected using questionnaires, checklists and research logbooks and were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively.

resultsIn total, 16 hospitals, 33 nurses and 7 oncological occupational physicians (OOPs) participated. Analysis of the six key components revealed that the inclusion rate of eligible patients was 47%. Thirty-eight intervention patients were included: 35 actually had a first meeting, 32 had a second and 17 had a third. For 31 patients (89%), the first meeting was face to face, as per protocol. However, in only 32% of the cases referred to support type A (oncological nurse) and 13% of the cases referred to support type B (OOP), the first meeting was before the start of the treatment, as per protocol. The average duration of the support type A meetings was around the pre-established 30 min; for the OOPs, the average was 50 min. Protocol was easy to follow according to the healthcare professionals. Overall, the patients considered the intervention useful.

conclusionsThis study has shown that the strategy of tailored work-related support is appreciated by both patients and healthcare professionals and applicable in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The intervention was appreciated by patients; however, whether the timing of the work-related support was adequate (i.e. before treatment was started) requires further research.

trial registrationNTR5022.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedFemaleGastrointestinal NeoplasmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedRehabilitation, VocationalReturn to WorkSurvivorsYoung AdultGastrointestinal neoplasmsPatient careProcess evaluationReturn to workVocational rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID31745819
PMCPMC7028837
OpenAlexW2989637905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.