ArticleBMJ open2020
What patients with lung cancer with comorbidity tell us about interprofessional collaborative care across healthcare sectors: qualitative interview study.
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 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.
- Clinical effects of the Collaborative Care Model on pulmonary function and quality of life in postoperative patients with lung cancer.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Difficulties in Care and Unmet Needs from the Perspective of Patients with Lung Cancer and Stroke - A Qualitative Study in Germany.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Pan-cancer analyses of the associations between 109 pre-existing conditions and cancer treatment patterns across 19 adult cancers.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- What do people with lung cancer and stroke expect from patient navigation? A qualitative study in Germany.BMJ open · 2021Article
- International consensus on severe lung cancer-the first edition.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with lung cancer with comorbidity often require treatment and care by different health professionals, in different settings and at different points in time during the course of the disease. In order to organise and coordinate healthcare efficiently, effective information exchange and collaboration between all involved care providers are required. The aim of this study was to assess the views of patients with advanced lung cancer with comorbidity regarding coordination of treatment and care across healthcare sectors.
methodsThis qualitative study, as part of the main study, The Heidelberg Milestones Communication Approach, used face-to-face guide-based semistructured interviews with patients with advanced lung cancer and their informal caregivers to explore cross-sectoral information exchange and collaboration in Germany. All generated data were audio-recorded, pseudonymised and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis was performed using qualitative content analysis to structure data into themes and subthemes. All data were managed and organised in MAXQDA.
resultsIn 15 interviews, participants reported that cross-sectoral collaboration functioned well, if treatments occurred as planned. However, treatment gaps were experienced, especially regarding medication and regimen. As a result, participants felt insecure and obliged to take responsibility for the coordination of healthcare. Patients reported to be in favour of an active patient role but felt that healthcare coordination should still be a responsibility of a care provider. A more intensive information exchange, potentially by using an electronic platform, was expected to strengthen cross-sectoral collaboration.
conclusionPatients with lung cancer are uncertain about their role in the coordination of treatment and care across healthcare sectors. Healthcare providers should be more aware of care recipients' willingness of taking on a more active role in healthcare coordination. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00013469.
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.