Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32218663›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2020

Patient and physician perceptions of lung cancer care in a multidisciplinary clinic model.

G Linford, R Egan, A Coderre-Ball, N Dalgarno, C J L Stone, A Robinson, D Robinson, S Wakeham, G C Digby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Multidisciplinary meeting review in nonsmall cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

G LinfordDepartment of Oncology, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario.
R EganSchool of Nursing, Queen's University.
A Coderre-BallOffice of Professional Development and Educational Scholarship, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University.
N DalgarnoOffice of Professional Development and Educational Scholarship, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University.
C J L StoneDepartment of Medicine, Kingston Health Sciences Centre.
A RobinsonDepartment of Oncology, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario.
D RobinsonSchool of Medicine, Queen's University.
S WakehamSchool of Medicine, Queen's University.
G C DigbyDepartment of Oncology, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Lung cancer (lc) is a complex disease requiring coordination of multiple health care professionals. A recently implemented lc multidisciplinary clinic (mdc) at Kingston Health Sciences Centre, an academic tertiary care hospital, improved timeliness of oncology assessment and treatment. This study describes patient, caregiver, and physician experiences in the mdc. Methods: We qualitatively studied patient, caregiver, and physician experiences in a traditional siloed care model and in the mdc model. We used purposive sampling to conduct semi-structured interviews with patients and caregivers who received care in one of the models and with physicians who worked in both models. Thematic design by open coding in the ATLAS.ti software application (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development, Berlin, Germany) was used to analyze the data. Results: Participation by 6 of 72 identified patients from the traditional model and 6 of 40 identified patients from the mdc model was obtained. Of 9 physicians who provided care in both models, 8 were interviewed (2 respirologists, 2 medical oncologists, 4 radiation oncologists). Four themes emerged: communication and collaboration, efficiency, quality of care, and effect on patient outcomes. Patients in both models had positive impressions of their care. Patients in the mdc frequently reported convenience and a positive effect of family presence at appointments. Physicians reported that the mdc improved communication and collegiality, clinic efficiency, patient outcomes and satisfaction, and consistency of information provided to patients. Physicians identified lack of clinic space as an area for mdc improvement. Conclusions: This qualitative study found that a lc mdc facilitated patient communication and physician collaboration, improved quality of care, and had a perceived positive effect on patient outcomes.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory Care FacilitiesFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPatientsPerceptionPhysiciansQualitative Researchlung cancermultidisciplinary modelspatient experiencesprocess improvementQuality of care

Identifiers

PMID32218663
PMCPMC7096197

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.