ArticleJournal of patient experience2020
Optimizing Community and Hospital Services Using the Cancer Support Source Program.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Cancer Support Community developed the Cancer Support Source (CSS) to assess the needs of cancer patients with distress. Each item on this self-administered questionnaire represents an area of concern which the patient rates and indicates their need for action with a "staff person," but no details about the category of staff is given.
objectiveTo examine the factor structure of the CSS and to increase its utility to triage patients for referral to services based on a needs assessment.
methodsData from 690 patients who completed the CSS over a 1-year period were analyzed. In study 1, an exploratory principal component analysis was conducted. In study 2, the fit of this proposed model was evaluated with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
resultsThree factors were retained in the final CFA: emotional distress, physical health concerns, and resource needs. This model demonstrated adequate fit, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)= 0.056, Comparitive Fit Index (CFI) = .907, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.050.
conclusionsThree factors are proposed as CSS subscales to guide referral and coordinate services: Emotional Distress/Patient and Family Counselor, Physical Health Concerns/Medical Care Provider, and Resource Needs/Case Management-Clinical Social Worker. The clinical utility of these referral subscales should be established with additional research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.