Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34169481›Full record

ArticleThe patient2022

Dealing with Discontinuity in Cancer Care Trajectories: Patients' Solutions.

Debbie Vermond, Souad El Habhoubi, Esther de Groot, Larike Bronkhorst, Niek de Wit, Dorien Zwart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Debbie VermondJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. D.Vermond@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-9552-2340
Souad El HabhoubiJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Esther de GrootJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Larike BronkhorstFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Department of Education, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Niek de WitJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Dorien ZwartJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatients with cancer require specialized care from different care providers, challenging continuity of care in terms of information, relationships, and/or management. The recognition of discontinuity of care has led to different initiatives by the healthcare system over the years. Yet, making use of the theory on boundary objects and brokers, this research explores the active role of patients themselves in resolving discontinuity along their care trajectories.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 33 patients to unravel the discontinuities that they experience and their attempts to resolve these. Interview data were analyzed using directed-content analysis informed by concepts from boundary crossing literature (i.e., data were searched for potential boundary objects and brokers).

resultsTo re-establish continuity of care, patients actively use the objects and people provided by the healthcare system when these meet their needs. Patients also introduce own objects and people into the care trajectory. As such, information and management discontinuity can typically be resolved. Relational continuity appears to be more difficult to resolve, in some cases leaving patients to take drastic measures, such as changing care providers. DISCUSSION: The use of boundary crossing theory in improving care from a patient perspective is relatively novel. When patients and providers together address the objects and people that support establishing continuity of care, a continuous care process may be encouraged. We advocate an integrated approach, rather than provider or healthcare system initiatives exclusively, to patient care and continuity.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareNeoplasmsHumans

Identifiers

PMID34169481
PMCPMC8739302

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.