ArticleBMC health services research2021
Patient experiences of waiting times in standardised cancer patient pathways in Norway - a qualitative interview study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- What matters to patients with cancer receiving home care at the end of life? A qualitative study comparing patients' and healthcare professionals' views.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025Article
- The effect of cultural and linguistic diversity on the timeliness of prostate cancer treatment: a registry-based retrospective cohort study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- "I Became the Messenger Between the Hospitals": A Study on the Journeys of People With Cancer Using the Critical Incident Technique.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Performance of standardized cancer patient pathways in Sweden visualized using observational data and a state-transition model.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Identification of an oncological clinical pathway through questionnaires to health professionals.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Men's perception of information and psychological distress in the diagnostic phase of prostate cancer: a comparative mixed methods study.BMC nursing · 2022Article
- Leveraging AI chatbots in supporting breast and ovarian cancer patients: A scoping review.Digital healthReview
- In Limbo: Seven Families' Experiences of Encounter with Cancer Care in Norway.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveStandardised cancer patient pathways (CPP) are implemented within cancer care with an aim to ensure standardised waiting times for diagnosis and treatment. This article investigates how patients in Norway experience waiting times within a CPP.
methodsQualitative semi-structured interviews with 19 patients who had been through CPP for breast cancer, prostate cancer or malignant melanoma in Norway.
resultsFew patients knew about the term CPP but trusted that waiting times were standardised to decrease mortality. Their experiences of waiting depended on their expectations as much as the period they waited. Patients generally felt safe about the timing of treatment, but not all expectations of a rapid response from health services were met. Short waiting times were interpreted as a sign of urgency, and a change of pace between urgent action and prolonged periods of waiting were disturbing.
conclusionsPatients are comforted by knowing they are within a structured CPP that ensures rapid diagnosis and start of treatment. CPPs still need to be improved to avoid delays, allow for adaptions to patient needs, and include more information to avoid stress.
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.