Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34582132›Full record

ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2022

Team functioning across different tumour types: Insights from a Swiss cancer center using qualitative and quantitative methods.

Felicitas Hitz, Karin Ribi, Gudela Grote, Michaela Kolbe, Christof Schmitz, Benjamin W Lamb, Thomas Ruhstaller, Peter Berchtold, Nick Sevdalis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Felicitas HitzOncology Haemtology, Kantonsspital St.Gallen, St.Gallen, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5653-5117
Karin RibiInternational Breast Cancer Study Group, Coordinating Center, Bern, Switzerland.
Gudela GroteDepartment of Management, Technology and Economics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Michaela KolbeDepartment "Simulationszentrum", University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Christof SchmitzCollege M, Bern, Switzerland.
Benjamin W LambDepartment of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Thomas RuhstallerBrustzentrum Ostschweiz and University of Basel, St.Gallen, Switzerland.
Peter BerchtoldCollege M, Bern, Switzerland.
Nick SevdalisCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College, London, UK.
Swiss Continence Foundation · CHCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBETH Zurich · CHInternational Breast Cancer Study Group · CHKantonsspital St. Gallen · CHKing's College London · GBUniversity of Basel · CH

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultidisciplinary care is pivotal in cancer centres and the interaction of all cancer disease specialists in decision making processes is state-of-the-art.

aimTo describe differences of MDTMs by tumour type.

methodsTwelve multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) with participation of different cancer disease specialists at a tertiary hospital were assessed by an exploratory sequential mixed method approach with interviews, observations and a survey to address the following five topics: organisational structure and supporting technology; leadership; teamwork; decision-making, perceived value and motivation. Thirteen persons with different tumour specialities and levels of seniority were interviewed. The 12 MDTMs were observed twice by uninvolved persons and evaluated by the participating physicians with a survey.

resultsThere were no systematic differences between MDTMs for different tumour types with the exception of the non-disease specific type MDTM, which was the only one for which the organisational structure was not driven by an electronic tool. However, several factors could be identified that generally influenced the functioning of the MDTMs. In particular, the quality of decision-making was highly dependent on the availability of case-based information and the presence of relevant cancer disease specialists. Leadership and teamwork were rated as important and were comparable across the MDTM. Team participants' motivation and perceived value of MDTMs was high across all meetings.

conclusionMDTM at a single institution did not demonstrate disease specific characteristics. An effective MDTM, irrespective of the tumour type, can be successfully structured by technical means and a chairperson coordinating the interaction of cancer disease specialists to improve the decision-making process.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPhysiciansHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationPatient Care TeamSwitzerlandbehavioral sciencecancer carecancer educationcancer management

Identifiers

PMID34582132
PMCPMC9351662
OpenAlexW3202295295

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.