Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32883731›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Realist review protocol for understanding the real-world barriers and enablers to practitioners implementing self-management support to people living with and beyond cancer.

Kumud Kantilal, Wendy Hardeman, Hattie Whiteside, Eleni Karapanagiotou, Matthew Small, Debi Bhattacharya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors.

Kumud KantilalSchool of Pharmacy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK k.kantilal@uea.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8517-4637
Wendy HardemanSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Hattie WhitesideSchool of Pharmacy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Eleni KarapanagiotouMedical Oncology, Guy's and Saint Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK.
Matthew SmallPharmacy department, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Debi BhattacharyaSchool of Pharmacy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSelf-management support can enable and empower people living with and beyond cancer to take an active role in managing long-term consequences of cancer treatment. Healthcare professionals are key to promoting patients to self-manage, however, they do not routinely engage in these discussions. This review aims to understand what works for whom and in what circumstances in relation to practitioners engaging with supporting people living with and beyond cancer to self-manage long-term consequences of systemic anticancer treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow five steps for undertaking the realist review: (1) define the review scope, (2) develop initial programme theories, (3) evidence search, (4) selection and appraisal and (5) data extraction and synthesis. We will combine an informal literature search with a theory-based approach, using the theoretical domains framework, and stakeholder feedback to develop initial programme theories. We will search Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC and AMED databases to September 2019, and supplement this with citation tracking, grey literature and practitioner surveys. Data selection will be based on relevance and rigour. Data will be extracted and synthesised iteratively, and causal links between contexts, mechanism and outcomes illuminated in the process. The results will be reported according to the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and publication standards. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have received ethical approval through the Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia (ref 2 01 819-124). We will disseminate to the research community through conference presentations and a peer-reviewed journal article. We will work with healthcare organisations, cancer charities and patients to agree a strategy for disseminating to these groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019120910.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsSelf-ManagementDelivery of Health CareHumansResearch DesignReview Literature as Topicadult oncologychemotherapyorganisation of health servicestoxicity

Identifiers

PMID32883731
PMCPMC7473657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.