Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32803729›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Facilitators and barriers to shared primary and specialist cancer care: a systematic review.

Karolina Lisy, Jennifer Kent, Amanda Piper, Michael Jefford

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Clinical insights into the management of sleep disturbances within cancer care: a qualitative analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

Karolina LisyDepartment of Cancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. karolina.lisy@petermac.org.
Jennifer KentAustralian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Amanda PiperAustralian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Michael JeffordDepartment of Cancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo care for the growing population of cancer survivors, health services worldwide must reconsider how to deliver care to people living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis. Shared care, defined as cancer care that is shared between specialist and primary care providers, is one model that has been investigated; however, practical guidance to support implementation is lacking. This systematic review aimed to explore facilitators and barriers to implementing shared cancer care and to develop practice and policy recommendations to support implementation.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in June 2019 across MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycINFO databases. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review question were extracted and synthesized following a mixed methods approach.

resultsThirteen papers were included in the review, 10 qualitative and three quantitative. Included articles were from Australia (n = 8), the USA (n = 3), and one each from the UK and the Netherlands. Sixteen themes were developed under four categories of patient, healthcare professional, process, and policy factors. Key themes included the perceived need for primary care provider training, having clearly defined roles for each healthcare provider, providing general practitioners with diagnostic and treatment summaries, as well as protocols or guidelines for follow-up care, ensuring rapid and accurate communication between providers, utilizing electronic medical records and survivorship care plans as communication tools, and developing consistent policy to reduce fragmentation across services.

conclusionRecommendations for practice and policy were generated based on review findings that may support broader implementation of shared cancer care.

Indexed as

Interprofessional RelationsAftercareAustraliaCancer SurvivorsFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansNeoplasmsNetherlandsPrimary Health CareSurvivorshipCancerHealth services researchModels of carePrimary careSurvivorshipSystematic review

Identifiers

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.