Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32333765›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2020

Personalized Cancer Follow-Up Care Pathways: A Delphi Consensus of Research Priorities.

Corinne R Leach, Catherine M Alfano, Jessica Potts, Lisa Gallicchio, K Robin Yabroff, Kevin C Oeffinger, Erin E Hahn, Lawrence N Shulman, Shawna V Hudson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Defining research and infrastructure priorities for cancer survivorship in Australia: a modified Delphi study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Cancer survivorship care during COVID-19-perspectives and recommendations from the MASCC survivorship study group.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Corinne R LeachBehavioral and Epidemiology Research Group, American Cancer Society, Inc, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Catherine M AlfanoAmerican Cancer Society, Inc, Washington, DC, USA.
Jessica PottsRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Lisa GallicchioEpidemiology and Genomics Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
K Robin YabroffSurveillance and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society, Inc, Atlanta, GA, USA; 6Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Kevin C OeffingerResearch and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Erin E HahnResearch and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Lawrence N ShulmanAbramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Shawna V HudsonRutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
American Cancer Society · USKaiser Permanente · USEmory University · USNational Cancer Institute · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Development of personalized, stratified follow-up care pathways where care intensity and setting vary with needs could improve cancer survivor outcomes and efficiency of health-care delivery. Advancing such an approach in the United States requires identification and prioritization of the most pressing research and data needed to create and implement personalized care pathway models. Cancer survivorship research and care experts (n = 39) participated in an in-person workshop on this topic in 2018. Using a modified Delphi technique-a structured, validated system for identifying consensus-an expert panel identified critical research questions related to operationalizing personalized, stratified follow-up care pathways for individuals diagnosed with cancer. Consensus for the top priority research questions was achieved iteratively through 3 rounds: item generation, item consolidation, and selection of the final list of priority research questions. From the 28 research questions that were generated, 11 research priority questions were identified. The questions were categorized into 4 priority themes: determining outcome measures for new care pathways, developing and evaluating new care pathways, incentivizing new care pathway delivery, and providing technology and infrastructure to support self-management. Existing data sources to begin answering questions were also identified. Although existing data sources, including cancer registry, electronic medical record, and health insurance claims data, can be enhanced to begin addressing some questions, additional research resources are needed to address these priority questions.

Indexed as

AftercareHealth PrioritiesAdultAgedBiomedical ResearchCancer SurvivorsContinuity of Patient CareCritical PathwaysDelivery of Health CareDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32333765
PMCPMC7735765
OpenAlexW3020286353

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.