Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35113976›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Exploring non-physician care professionals' roles in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A qualitative study.

Melissa Horlait, Melissa De Regge, Saskia Baes, Kristof Eeckloo, Mark Leys

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Exploring the gastric cancer care pathway in South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Melissa HorlaitFaculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Department of Public Health, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1899-7518
Melissa De ReggeFaculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Marketing, Innovation and Organisation, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Saskia BaesFaculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Department of Public Health, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Kristof EecklooStrategic Policy Cell, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Mark LeysFaculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Department of Public Health, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Interdisciplinary CommunicationBelgiumDecision MakingFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMedical OncologyNeoplasmsNursesPatient Care TeamPsychologyQualitative ResearchSocial WorkersTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID35113976
PMCPMC8812975

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.