ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2022
Enhancing International Cancer Organization Collaborations: King Hussein Cancer Center and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Model for Collaboration.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05592938 (Partial Breast Re-irradiation Using Ultra Hypofractionation), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Partial Breast Re-irradiation Using Ultra Hypofractionation: Phase 2 Multi-institutional Study (PRESERVE)
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Exploration of the Pillars of Leadership in Cancer Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024Review
- Pan-Canadian Survey of Radiation Oncology Professional Involvement in Global Oncology Initiatives in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- Evolving practice in global healthcare: Remote physics support for low- and middle-income countries.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
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
Collaborative partnerships, which link two health organizations with shared characteristics to achieve common goals and to improve healthcare quality, are becoming increasingly common in oncology. The purpose of this study is to review the collaboration between King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC) and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM). The context, input, process, and product (CIPP) model, a quasi-experimental form of program evaluation, has been applied to the KHCC-PM collaboration. This model is well suited to evaluate complex collaborations as it does not assume linear relationships. Data sources include stakeholders' judgements of the collaboration, assessment of achievements, and informal interviews with key participants involved in the program. KHCC and PM are recognized as high-caliber comprehensive cancer centers, with a common goal of delivering high-quality care to patients. Through personal relationships among faculty in the centers and the perceived opportunities for mutual benefit, KHCC and PM signed a memorandum of understanding in 2013 to enter into a formal partnership. This partnership has been an evolving process that started with collaboration on education and grew to include clinical care. Research is an area for potential future collaboration. Enabling factors in the collaboration include dedication of individuals involved, trusting relationships amongst faculty, and the reciprocal nature of the relationship. Challenges have been financial, competing interests, and the absence of a successful collaborative model to follow. The KHCC and PM collaboration has been successful. A strategic plan is being developed and followed to guide areas of expansion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32926325What 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.