Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32156765›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Evaluation of a complex integrated, cross-sectoral psycho-oncological care program (isPO): a mixed-methods study protocol.

Imke Jenniches, Clarissa Lemmen, Jan Christopher Cwik, Michael Kusch, Hildegard Labouvie, Nadine Scholten, Alexander Gerlach, Stephanie Stock, Christina Samel, Anna Hagemeier and 5 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. An item analysis according to the Rasch model of the German 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

15 authors.

Imke JennichesIMVR - Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Clarissa LemmenInstitute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jan Christopher CwikClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2290-353X
Michael KuschDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Hildegard LabouvieDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Nadine ScholtenIMVR - Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7793-7745
Alexander GerlachDepartment of Psychology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Stephanie StockInstitute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Christina SamelInstitute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Anna HagemeierInstitute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Martin HellmichInstitute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Peter HaasDepartment of Computer Science (Medical Informatics), University of Applied Sciences and Arts Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany.
Michael HallekDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Holger PfaffIMVR - Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Antje DresenIMVR - Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany antje.dresen@uk-koeln.de.ORCID 0000-0001-7684-9391

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInternational standards of care require the complete integration of psycho-oncological care into biomedical cancer treatment. The structured integrated, cross-sectoral psycho-oncological programme 'isPO' is aiming to ensure a provision of care in inpatient and outpatient settings according to a stepped-care approach. Up to now, psycho-oncological care is missing regulated and standardised processes to demonstrate the effectiveness. This study protocol describes the process and outcome evaluation that is conducted, along with the isPO study. The programme evaluation is aiming to proof effectiveness, explain potential discrepancies between expected and observed outcomes. Additionally, provide insight into the implementation process, as well as contextual factors that might promote or inhibit the dissemination and implementation of the stepped care programme will be gained. In addition to these measures, a cost-consequence analysis will provide further evidence aimed at integrating psycho-oncological care into primary healthcare. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The evaluation concept is based on a tripartite strategy consisting of a prospective, formative and summative evaluation. To capture all determinants, a concurrent mixed-method design is applied comprising qualitative (interviews and focus groups) and quantitative (standardised questionnaires) surveys of patients and healthcare providers. In addition, analysis of the psycho-oncological care data (isPO care data) and statutory health insurance claims data will be conducted. Primary and secondary data will complement one another (data linkage) to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the effectiveness and implementation of the complex intervention within the isPO study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne. For all collected data, the relevant national and European data protection regulations will be considered. All personal identifiers (eg, name, date of birth) will be pseudonymised. Dissemination strategies include annual reports as well as quality workshops for the organisations, the presentation of results in publications and on conferences, and public relations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00015326; Pre-results.

Indexed as

AdultAttitude of Health PersonnelCase-Control StudiesClinical Trials as TopicData AccuracyEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleFocus GroupsGermanyHealth PersonnelHumansInsurance, HealthInterviews as TopicMaleNeoplasmsPrimary Health Carehealth services researchimplementationmixed-methodsprocess evaluationpsycho-oncologystudy protocol

Identifiers

PMID32156765
PMCPMC7064131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.