Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31980015›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2020

Current status of integrating oncology and palliative care in Japan: a nationwide survey.

Y Uneno, K Sato, T Morita, M Nishimura, S Ito, M Mori, C Shimizu, Y Horie, M Hirakawa, T E Nakajima and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Y UnenoDepartment of Therapeutic Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawaharacho Shogoin Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. yuuneno@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.
K SatoDepartment of Nursing, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
T MoritaDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan.
M NishimuraGeriatric Health Service Facility, You-You no Sono, Hiroshima, Japan.
S ItoDepartment of Health Informatics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/ School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan.
M MoriPalliative Care Team, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan.
C ShimizuDepartment of Breast Medical Oncology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Y HorieDepartment of Clinical Oncology, St Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan.
M HirakawaDepartment of Clinical Oncology, St Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan.
T E NakajimaDepartment of Clinical Oncology, St Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan.
S TsunetoDepartment of Human Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
M MutoDepartment of Therapeutic Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawaharacho Shogoin Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.

Funding

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare Health Labor Science Research Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPalliative care (PC) is increasingly recognized as essential for oncology care, and several academic societies strongly recommend integrating oncology and palliative care (IOP) in daily practice. Similarly, the Japanese government encouraged the implementation of IOP through the Cancer Control Act of 2007; however, its detailed progress remains unclear. Therefore, this cross-sectional nationwide survey was conducted to investigate the current status and hospital executive physicians' perception of IOP.

methodsThe questionnaire was developed based on IOP indicators with international consensus. It was distributed to executive physicians at all government-designated cancer hospitals (DCHs, n = 399) and matched non-DCHs (n = 478) in November 2017 and the results were compared.

resultsIn total, 269 (67.4%) DCHs and 259 (54.2%) non-DCHs responded. The number of PC resources in DCHs was significantly higher than those in non-DCHs (e.g., full-time PC physicians and nurses, 52.8% vs. 14.0%, p < 0.001; availability of outpatient PC service ≥3 days per week, 47.6% vs. 20.7%, p < 0.001). Routine symptom screening was more frequently performed in DCHs than in non-DCHs (65.1% vs. 34.7%, p < 0.001). Automatic trigger for PC referral availability was limited (e.g., referral using time trigger, 14.9% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.700). Education and research opportunities were seriously limited in both types of hospitals. Most executive physicians regarded IOP as beneficial for their patients (95.9% vs. 94.7%, p = 0.163) and were willing to facilitate an early referral to PC services (54.7% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.569); however, the majority faced challenges to increase the number of full-time PC staff, and < 30% were planning to increase the staff members.

conclusionsThis survey highlighted a considerable number of IOP indicators met, particularly in DCHs probably due to the government policy. Further efforts are needed to address the serious research/educational gaps.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedHumansJapanOncology Service, HospitalPalliative CareSurveys and QuestionnairesCare deliveryOncologyOrganizational innovationPalliative careQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID31980015
PMCPMC6982384

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.