ArticleJCO global oncology2020
Formal Assessment of Teamwork Among Cancer Health Care Professionals in Three Large Tertiary Centers in Nigeria.
Article in JCO global oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multidisciplinary care meeting practices across diverse international settings.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Development and Adaptation of a Patient-Centered Communication Survey for Parents of Children With Cancer in Guatemala.JCO global oncology · 2022Article
- Oncology Training Needs Assessment Among Health Care Professionals in Nigeria.JCO global oncology · 2022Article
- Competencies for Nurses Regarding Psychosocial Care of Patients With Cancer in Africa: An Imperative for Action.JCO global oncology · 2022Article
- The differences in the assessments of side effects at an oncology outpatient clinic.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere are strategies to bring quality cancer care to underserved patients, but poor use of the principles of teamwork is a major barrier to achieving quality services. The intent of this study was to assess teamwork as perceived by health care workers caring for patients with cancer.
methodsWe conducted a survey among health care professionals in cancer care at 3 tertiary centers in southwestern Nigeria from July to November 2016. Respondents rated teamwork using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire; we focused on the teamwork climate subscale comparing health care providers and institutions using analysis of variance and on collaboration using logistic regression.
resultsThree hundred seventy-three professionals completed the survey: 177 physicians (47%), 51 nurses (14%), 21 pharmacists (6%), 31 laboratory technicians (8%), and 88 others (24%); 5 (1%) participants had missing professional information. The average teamwork climate score across all professionals in the study was 70.5 (SD = 24.2). Pharmacists rated the teamwork climate the lowest, with a mean score of 63.9 (SD = 29.5); nurses and laboratory technicians rated teamwork higher, with means of 74.5 (SD = 21.7) and 74.2 (SD = 27.1), respectively; and physicians rated teamwork 66.0 (SD = 23.6). Collaboration with other health care providers was reported as poorer by physicians compared with nurses and pharmacists.
conclusionAlthough overall teamwork scores were consistent with ambulatory studies in the United States, important subgroup variations provide targets for intervention. Physicians rated collaboration as poor both intra- and interprofessionally. Pharmacists rated interprofessional teamwork with nurses as poor. Efforts to transform cancer care must focus on building trust among the key stakeholders. This is critical in low-resource settings, which must maximize the use of limited resources to improve patient outcomes.
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.