Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34493271›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Patient participation in cancer network governance: a six-year case study.

Dominique Tremblay, Nassera Touati, Susan Usher, Karine Bilodeau, Marie-Pascale Pomey, Lise Lévesque

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Dominique TremblayCentre de recherche Charles-Le Moyne - Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean sur les innovations en santé, Campus de Longueuil - Université de Sherbrooke, 150 Place Charles LeMoyne - Bureau 200, Québec, J4K 0A, Longueuil, Canada. dominique.tremblay2@usherbrooke.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1798-5681
Nassera TouatiÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique, 4750 ave Henri-Julien, 5e étage, Québec, H2T 3E5, Montréal, Canada.
Susan UsherCentre de recherche Charles-Le Moyne - Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean sur les innovations en santé, Campus de Longueuil - Université de Sherbrooke, 150 Place Charles LeMoyne - Bureau 200, Québec, J4K 0A, Longueuil, Canada.
Karine BilodeauFaculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Pavillon Marguerite-d'Youville, local 7101, 2375 chemin de la Côte-Ste-Catherine, Québec, H3T 1A8, Montréal, Canada.
Marie-Pascale PomeySchool of Public Health, Université de Montréal, 7101 ave du Parc, 3e étage, bureau 3014-8, Québec, H3N 1X9, Montréal, Canada.
Lise LévesqueCentre de recherche Charles-Le Moyne - Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean sur les innovations en santé, Campus de Longueuil - Université de Sherbrooke, 150 Place Charles LeMoyne - Bureau 200, Québec, J4K 0A, Longueuil, Canada.
Université de Sherbrooke · CAÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique · CAHEC Montréal · CAUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé 265874Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé 27193
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient participation in decision-making has become a hallmark of responsive healthcare systems. Cancer networks in many countries have committed to involving people living with and beyond cancer (PLC) at multiple levels. However, PLC participation in network governance remains highly variable for reasons that are poorly understood. This study aims to share lessons learned regarding mechanisms that enable PLC participation in cancer network governance.

methodsThis multiple case study, using a qualitative approach in a natural setting, was conducted over six years in three local cancer networks within the larger national cancer network in Quebec (Canada), where PLC participation is prescribed by the Cancer Directorate. Data were collected from multiple sources, including individual and focus group interviews (n = 89) with policymakers, managers, clinicians and PLC involved in national and local cancer governance committees. These data were triangulated and iteratively analysed according to a framework based on functions of collaborative governance in the network context.

resultsWe identify three main mechanisms that enable PLC participation in cancer network governance: (1) consistent emphasis on patient-centred care as a network objective; (2) flexibility, time and support to translate mandated PLC representation into meaningful participation; and (3) recognition of the distinct knowledge of PLC in decision-making. The shared vision of person-centred care facilitates PLC participation. The quality of participation improves through changes in how committee meetings are conducted, and through the establishment of a national committee where PLC can pool their experience, develop skills and establish a common voice on priority issues. PLC knowledge is especially valued around particular challenges such as designing integrated care trajectories and overcoming barriers to accessing care. These three mechanisms interact to enable PLC participation in governance and are activated to varying extents in each local network.

conclusionsThis study reveals that mandating PLC representation on governance structures is a powerful context element enabling participation, but that it also delineates which governance functions are open to influence from PLC participation. While the activation of mechanisms is context dependent, the insights from this study in Quebec are transferable to cancer networks in other jurisdictions seeking to embed PLC participation in decision-making.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient ParticipationFocus GroupsHumansPatient-Centered CareSocial NetworkingCancerCollaborative governanceGovernance functionsMultiple case study designNetworksPatient participationQualitative data

Identifiers

PMID34493271
PMCPMC8423332
OpenAlexW3198354940

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.