Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34598994›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Codesigning a supportive online resource for Australian cancer carers: a thematic analysis of informal carers' and healthcare professionals' perspectives about carers' responsibilities and content needs.

Sharnel Miriam Perera, Clare O'Callaghan, Anna Ugalde, Olinda Santin, Cassandra Beer, G Prue, Katherine Lane, Gerard G Hanna, Penelope Schofield

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Coping with primary brain tumors together: a scoping review of dyadic psychosocial interventions.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Sharnel Miriam PereraDepartment of Psychology and Iverson Health Innovation Research Institute, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0000-2431
Clare O'CallaghanDepartment of Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anna UgaldeInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2473-8435
Olinda SantinSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
Cassandra BeerHealth Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
G PrueMedical Biology Centre, Queen's University Belfast School of Nursing and Midwifery, Northern Ireland, UK.
Katherine LaneCancer Information and Support Services, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Gerard G HannaSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1003-5138
Penelope SchofieldDepartment of Psychology and Iverson Health Innovation Research Institute, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia pschofield@swin.edu.au.
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUQueen's University Belfast · GBThe University of Melbourne · AUCancer Council Victoria · AUDeakin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo gather preliminary qualitative data that will assist in the codesign and development of a new informational and supportive website to assist informal cancer carers in Australia. DESIGN AND

settingUtilising a previously tested codesign process, informal carers' experiences and perspectives, including those of healthcare professionals', were examined via focus groups and/or interviews. Data were analysed via thematic analysis.

participantsRural (n=9) and urban (n=11) carers', and healthcare professionals' (n=8) perspectives were collected. Carers participated in a focus group (n=9) or telephone interview (n=11). Healthcare professionals completed an interview (n=6) or online survey (n=2).

resultsRural and urban carers typically felt ill prepared for their multitudinal caregiving responsibilities. Supporting patient-to-healthcare professional liaisons could especially challenge. Carers' biopsychosocial and fiscal strains were affected by patients' hardships and available informal supports. Rural carers described greater social support than urban carers. Both rural and urban carers also described discontentment related to a carer neglecting healthcare system. Both carers and healthcare professionals endorsed the need for a user-friendly, carer-specific website encompassing practical information and resources, peer-driven advice and evidence-based illness information, tailored to the Australian context.

conclusionsCarers and healthcare professionals recognise the pressing need for an Australian, cancer carer-specific online resource. Findings will inform the next phase, where a resource will be designed, developed and tested.

Indexed as

CaregiversNeoplasmsAustraliaDelivery of Health CareHumansQualitative ResearchSocial Supportoncologypublic healthquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID34598994
PMCPMC8488722
OpenAlexW3201716740

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.