Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33845852›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2021

Measuring health care experiences that matter to Indigenous people in Australia with cancer: identifying critical gaps in existing tools.

Monica Green, Joan Cunningham, Kate Anderson, Kalinda Griffiths, Gail Garvey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Understanding experiences of optimal survivorship care: findings from a population-based study of cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  2. Indigenous Australians' Experiences of Cancer Care: A Narrative Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Monica GreenWellbeing and Preventable Chronic Diseases Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Level 10, East Tower, 410 Ann Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia. monica.green@menzies.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-9077-9606
Joan CunninghamWellbeing and Preventable Chronic Diseases Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Level 10, East Tower, 410 Ann Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia.
Kate AndersonWellbeing and Preventable Chronic Diseases Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Level 10, East Tower, 410 Ann Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia.
Kalinda GriffithsWellbeing and Preventable Chronic Diseases Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Level 10, East Tower, 410 Ann Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia.
Gail GarveyWellbeing and Preventable Chronic Diseases Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Level 10, East Tower, 410 Ann Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia.
Charles Darwin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeasurement of patients' healthcare experiences is increasingly used as an indicator of quality of care, but there are concerns that existing measures omit information that is meaningful to patients and that results may not be used systematically to inform service improvement. Further, current approaches may be inadequate for some population groups, such as Indigenous people in Australia, whose healthcare experience is impacted by the context of colonisation and discordance between Indigenous understandings of health and the Western biomedical health system. This study aimed to assess the extent to which existing patient experience measures used in Australia collect information about critical aspects of cancer care, as previously identified by Indigenous people affected by cancer and their health care providers.

methodsA two-stage process was used to examine the adequacy of existing patient experience measures for Indigenous people in Australia: (1) relevant tools and measures were identified and assessed, and four measures selected as suitable comparators; (2) comparators were examined in detail and mapped against topics identified in earlier research as important to Indigenous people with cancer. Gaps in topic coverage in comparators were identified.

resultsNo comparators completely captured the critical aspects of cancer care identified by Indigenous people affected by cancer and their health care providers. The number of topics 'partially' captured by the four comparators ranged from 4 to 7 out of 9. While most topics were partially covered, the lack of questions around culture and cultural safety was notable.

conclusionsExisting tools are likely to miss key aspects of Indigenous peoples' experiences of cancer care in Australia. Failure to adequately assess care experiences related to cultural safety may compromise efforts to improve health outcomes. Addressing gaps requires development of experience measures that are strengths-based, reflect an Indigenous worldview and measure aspects of experience relevant to Indigenous people.

Indexed as

Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesDelivery of Health CareHealth Services, IndigenousNeoplasmsQuality Indicators, Health CareAustraliaHumansAboriginalAustraliaCancerIndigenousMeasurementPatient experiencePerson-centred care

Identifiers

PMID33845852
PMCPMC8042987
OpenAlexW3120836858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.