ArticlePloS one2022
Exploring non-physician care professionals' roles in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Communication and support of patients and caregivers in chronic cancer care: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline.ESMO open · 2024Guideline
- Ensuring access to multidisciplinary care in advanced breast cancer: a global expert review and call-to-action for 2025-2035 (Goal 4).Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2025Review
- Beyond the individual: a qualitative case study into the systemic determinants of speaking-up behaviour in multidisciplinary team meetings.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Exploring the gastric cancer care pathway in South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Benefits and Challenges of Using Patient Preferences as a Tool for Clinical Decision Making in Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Meetings within the National Health Service: A Qualitative Study.Oncology research and treatment · 2025Article
- Clinical Utility of Integrated Multidisciplinary Patient-Centered Information in Breast Cancer Care: A Mixed Methods Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Necessity and influencing factors for integrating oral health in cancer care for older people: a narrative review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Review
- Measuring Team Functioning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Perspectives of Cancer Care Team Members.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Integrated Electronic Health Record of Multidisciplinary Professionals Throughout the Cancer Care Pathway: A Pilot Study Exploring Patient-Centered Information in Breast Cancer Patients.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Article
- Nurses and Physicians' Perceptions Regarding the Role of Oncology Clinical Nurse Specialists in an Exploratory Qualitative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Registered nurses' views on consideration of patient perspectives during multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care.BMC nursing · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growing complexity of cancer care necessitates collaboration among different professionals. This interprofessional collaboration improves cancer care delivery and outcomes. Treatment decision-making within the context of a multidisciplinaire team meeting (MDTMs) may be seen as a particular form of interprofessional collaboration. Various studies on cancer MDTMs highlight a pattern of suboptimal information sharing between attendants. To overcome the lack of non-medical, patient-based information, it might be recommended that non-physician care professionals play a key patient advocacy role within cancer MDTMs. This study aims to explore non-physician care professionals' current and aspired role within cancer MDTMs. Additionally, the perceived hindering factors for these non-physician care professionals to fulfil their specific role are identified. The analysis focuses on nurses, specialist nurses, head nurses, psychologists, social workers, a head of social workers and data managers. The results show that non-physician care professionals play a limited role during case discussions in MDTMs. Neither do they actively participate in the decision-making process. Barriers perceived by non-physician care professionals are classified on two main levels: 1) team-related barriers (factors internally related to the team) and 2) external barriers (factors related to healthcare management and policy). A group of non-physician care professionals also belief that their information does not add value in the decision-making proces and as such, they underestimate their own role in MDTMs. To conclude, a change of culture is needed towards an interdisciplinary collaboration in which knowledge and expertise of different professions are equally assimilated into an integrated perspective to guarantee a true patient-centred approach for cancer MDTMs.
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.