Observational studyBJS open2022
Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: impact of logistical challenges on communication and decision-making.
Observational study in BJS open, 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tumour boards and their quality of structures, processes, and team performance in multidisciplinary cancer care: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring holistic care needs in paediatric and teenage molecular radiotherapy: a parent and carer perspective.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Challenges to treatment preparedness among lung cancer patients from a healthcare provider perspective: a mixed-method study.npj health systems · 2026Article
- The Perception and Development of Virtual Multidisciplinary Teams in Oncology in the Post-COVID-19 Era.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Communication Processes and Priorities in Medical Aid in Dying Conversations: A Cross-Sectional Qualitative Study of Multidisciplinary Cancer Clinicians.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Task Requirements, Workflow Processes and Technological Constraints in Virtual Multidisciplinary Tumour Board Meetings: Insights for Extended Reality-Based Solutions in Thoracic Oncology.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Operationalising MDT streamlining through standards of care: a framework for specification and implementation.Frontiers in health services · 2026Review
- Making Multidisciplinary Team-Based Care (MTBC) a Success in Primary Care: A Scoping Review Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2025Review
- Improving the quality of patient care in lung cancer: key factors for successful multidisciplinary team working.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2024Review
- Article
- Evaluation of changes to work patterns in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A national mixed-method survey study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Use and accuracy of decision support systems using artificial intelligence for tumor diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Clinical analysis of decision implementation by a multidisciplinary team in cervical cancer cases in Ganzhou, China.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are widely used in cancer care. Recent research points to logistical challenges impeding MDT decision-making and dissatisfaction among members. This study sought to identify different types of logistical issues and how they impacted team processes.
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional observational study. Three cancer MDTs (breast, colorectal, and gynaecological) were recruited from UK hospitals. Validated observational instruments were used to measure decision-making (Metrics of Observational Decision-making, MDT-MODe), communication (Bales' Interaction Process Analysis, Bales' IPA), and case complexity (Measure of Case Discussion Complexity, MeDiC), including logistical challenges (Measure of Case Discussion Complexity, MeDiC), across 822 case discussions from 30 videoed meetings. Descriptive analysis and paired samples t tests were used to identify and compare frequency of different types of logistical challenges, along with partial correlations, controlling for clinical complexity of cases, to understand how such issues related to the MDT decision-making and communication.
resultsA significantly higher frequency of administrative and process issues (affecting 30 per cent of cases) was seen compared with the frequency of equipment issues (affecting 5 per cent of cases; P < 0.001) and the frequency of the attendance issues (affecting 16 per cent of cases; P < 0.001). The frequency of the attendance issues was significantly higher than the frequency of equipment issues (P < 0.001). Partial correlation analysis revealed that administrative and process issues, including attendance, were negatively correlated with quality of information (r = -0.15, P < 0.001; r = -0.11, P < 0.001), and equipment issues with the quality of contribution to meeting discussion (r = -0.14, P < 0.001). More questioning and answering by MDT members was evident with the administrative and process issues (r = 0.21, P < 0.001; r = 0.19, P < 0.001). Some differences were observed in teams' socioemotional reactions to the administrative and process issues with the gynaecological MDT showing positive correlation with positive socioemotional reactions (r = 0.20, P < 0.001), and the breast cancer MDT with negative socioemotional reactions (r = 0.17, P < 0.001).
conclusionAdministrative and process issues were the most frequent logistical challenges for the studied teams. Where diagnostic results were unavailable, and inadequate patient details provided, the quality of decision-making was reduced.
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.