Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35503140›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022

Telehealth cancer care consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study of the experiences of Australians affected by cancer.

Victoria White, Alice Bastable, Ilana Solo, Seleena Sherwell, Sangeetha Thomas, Rob Blum, Javier Torres, Natalie Maxwell-Davis, Kathy Alexander, Amanda Piper

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Barriers and facilitators to implementing an online psychological intervention for adolescent and young adult cancer survivors in a community setting.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Victoria WhiteSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia. Vicki.white@deakin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6619-8484
Alice BastableCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ilana SoloLoddon Mallee Integrated Cancer Service, Bendigo, VIC, Australia.
Seleena SherwellSouthern Melbourne Integrated Cancer Service, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sangeetha ThomasSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Rob BlumLoddon Mallee Integrated Cancer Service, Bendigo, VIC, Australia.
Javier TorresGoulburn Valley Health, Shepparton, VIC, Australia.
Natalie Maxwell-DavisConsumer Representative, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Kathy AlexanderConsumer Representative, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Amanda PiperCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Bendigo Health · AUCancer Council Victoria · AUDeakin University · AUGoulburn Valley Health · AUPaediatric Integrated Cancer Service · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn response to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth was rapidly rolled out in health services across Australia including those delivering cancer care. This study aimed to understand people with cancer and carers' experiences with telehealth for cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions.

methodSemi-structured interviews conducted with people with cancer and carers via telephone or online video link between December 2020 and May 2021. Participants were recruited through cancer networks and social media. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis undertaken.

resultsTwenty-three patients and 5 carers were interviewed. Telephone-based appointments were most common. Responses to telehealth were influenced by existing relationships with doctors, treatment/cancer stage and type of appointment. Four themes were derived: (i) benefits, (ii) quality of care concerns, (iii) involving carers, and (iv) optimising use of telehealth. Benefits included efficiency and reduced travel. Quality of care concerns identified subthemes: transactional feel to appointments; difficulties for rapport; suitability for appointment type and adequacy for monitoring. Both patients and carers noted a lack of opportunity for carers to participate in telephone-based appointments. Aligning appointment mode (i.e. telehealth or in person) with appointment purpose and ensuring telehealth was the patient's choice were seen as essential for its ongoing use. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsWhile telehealth has benefits, its potential to reduce the quality of interactions with clinicians made it less attractive for cancer patients. Patient-centred guidelines that ensure patient choice, quality communication, and alignment with appointment purpose may help to increase telehealth's utility for people affected by cancer.

Indexed as

COVID-19NeoplasmsTelemedicineAustraliaHumansPandemicsReferral and ConsultationCancerCarersPatient experiencesQualitative researchTelehealth

Identifiers

PMID35503140
PMCPMC9062284
OpenAlexW4225310465

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.