ArticleBMJ open2021
Improving mesothelioma follow-up care in the UK: a qualitative study to build a multidisciplinary pyramid of care approach.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing sustainable patient and public involvement in mesothelioma research: multi-method exploration with researchers, patients, carers, and patient organisations.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Understanding clinical decision-making in mesothelioma care: a mixed methods study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe findings reported in this manuscript are part of a wider study that aimed to explore mesothelioma patients' experiences of follow-up care. The aim of this phase of the study was to co-produce recommendations for policy and practice and to propose a revised, patient-focused, mesothelioma follow-up care service.
designThe consultation phase was qualitative and consisted of three group discussions with separate stakeholder groups allowing for different priorities and needs for follow-up care to be compared. An implicit approach to consensus was adopted and data were analysed iteratively using the framework method.
settingThe study was conducted in three National Health Service Trusts in the South of England. Two were secondary care settings and the third was a tertiary centre.
participantsThe consultation exercise comprised three group discussions with key stakeholders (n=35): mesothelioma specialist nurses (n=9), mesothelioma patients and carers (n=11) and local clinical commissioning group members (n=15).
resultsRecommendations for mesothelioma follow-up care were developed using a co-production approach and highlighted the importance of continuity of care, the provision of timely information and the central role played by mesothelioma specialist nurses, supported by the wider multidisciplinary team. Recommendations were produced together with two bespoke infographics to maximise impact and facilitate patient and public engagement with the study.
conclusionsThe recommendations developed are the first that specifically examine best practice for the follow-up care pathway for mesothelioma patients. Co-production and public engagement are crucial to priority setting develop and optimising patient-centred care. Combining the recommendations produced with a targeted dissemination strategy and well-designed, patient-focused infographics will maximise opportunities for impact at a regional and national level.
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.