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.
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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- How can interprofessional collaboration be fostered and sustained in team-based care integration for older people in community settings? A realist evidence synthesis.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- A realist review of factors critical for the implementation of eHealth in chronic disease management.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- A review of trial and real-world data applying elements of a realist approach to identify behavioural mechanisms supporting practitioners to taper opioids.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Use of symptom-reporting tools to support endometriosis identification and management in primary care: a realist synthesis.BMJ open · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- How and in what circumstances does facilitation work for residential aged care staff in the implementation of palliative care interventions? A realist review.Palliative medicine · 2026Review
- Developing community-based programme theories to address unmet needs of people experiencing homelessness and severe mental illness: protocol for a realist review.NIHR open research · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Understanding shared decision-making among patients with limited health literacy: a realist review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Optimizing the role and functions of CHWs in service of a people-centred community health system in sub-Saharan Africa. A realist synthesis.SSM - health systems · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Adult day programs and their effects on individuals with dementia and their caregivers (ADAPT-DemCare): a realist synthesis to develop program theories on the how and why.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Article
- Peer support interventions in maternal and child healthcare delivery in sub-Saharan Africa: protocol for a realist review.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Implementation of Home-Based Telerehabilitation of Patients With Stroke in the United States: Protocol for a Realist Review.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.