Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35560173›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Protocol for the process evaluation of a counselling intervention designed to educate cancer patients on complementary and integrative health care and promote interprofessional collaboration in this area (the CCC-Integrativ study).

Jasmin Bossert, Cornelia Mahler, Ursula Boltenhagen, Anna Kaltenbach, Daniela Froehlich, Joachim Szecsenyi, Michel Wensing, Stefanie Joos, Nadja Klafke

Open access · goldAbstract 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Implementing integrative nursing for oncology inpatients: a retrospective analysis of project-related routine data from 2021 to 2023.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
  7. Article
  8. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jasmin BossertDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Cornelia MahlerDepartment of Nursing Science, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Ursula BoltenhagenDepartment of Nursing Science, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Anna KaltenbachDepartment of Nursing Science, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Daniela FroehlichInstitute for General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Joachim SzecsenyiDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michel WensingDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefanie JoosInstitute for General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Nadja KlafkeDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
University Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DEHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConducting a process evaluation is essential to understand how health interventions work in different healthcare settings. Particularly in the case of complex interventions, it is important to find out whether the intervention could be carried out as planned and which factors had a beneficial or hindering effect on its implementation. The aim of this study is to present the detailed protocol of the process evaluation embedded in the controlled implementation study CCC-Integrativ aiming to implement an interprofessional counselling program for cancer patients on complementary and integrative health care (CIH).

methodsThis mixed methods study will draw upon the "Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research" (CFIR) combined with the concept of "intervention fidelity" to evaluate the quality of the interprofessional counselling sessions, to explore the perspective of the directly and indirectly involved healthcare staff, as well as to analyze the perceptions and experiences of the patients. The qualitative evaluation phase consists of analyzing audio-recorded counselling sessions, as well as individual and group interviews with the involved persons. The quantitative evaluation phase applies questionnaires which are distributed before (T0), at the beginning (T1), in the middle (T2) and at the end (T3) of the intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: This protocol provides an example of how a process evaluation can be conducted parallel to a main study investigating and implementing a complex intervention. The results of this mixed methods research will make it possible to identify strengths and weaknesses of the team-based intervention, and to target more specifically the key factors and structures required to implement healthcare structures to meet patients' unmet needs in the context of CIH. To our knowledge, this study is the first applying the CFIR framework in the context of interprofessional CIH counselling, and its results are expected to provide comprehensive and multidisciplinary management of cancer patients with complex supportive healthcare needs.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareNeoplasmsCounselingHealth FacilitiesHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID35560173
PMCPMC9106164
OpenAlexW4280523794

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.