Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36129136›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

Self-help friendliness in cancer care: A cross-sectional study among self-help group leaders in Germany.

Elâ Ziegler, Stefan Nickel, Alf Trojan, Jens Klein, Christopher Kofahl

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [The added value of self-help-oriented research in oncology for stakeholders in Germany].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Self-help friendliness in cancer care: A cross-sectional study among self-help group leaders in Germany.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  7. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elâ ZieglerCentre for Psychosocial Medicine, Institute of Medical Sociology, Institute of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2847-8087
Stefan NickelCentre for Psychosocial Medicine, Institute of Medical Sociology, Institute of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1742-7118
Alf TrojanCentre for Psychosocial Medicine, Institute of Medical Sociology, Institute of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Jens KleinCentre for Psychosocial Medicine, Institute of Medical Sociology, Institute of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Christopher KofahlCentre for Psychosocial Medicine, Institute of Medical Sociology, Institute of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer support is increasingly recognized as crucial for improving health and psychosocial outcomes in oncological care. The integration of cancer self-help groups (SHGs) into cancer care facilities has gained importance in recent years. Yet, there is a lack of knowledge of the extent and quality of cooperation between cancer care facilities and SHGs and their integration into routine care. The concept of self-help friendliness (SHF) provides a feasible instrument for the measurement of cooperation and integration.

methodsA cross-sectional study across Germany investigates the experiences of 266 leaders of cancer SHGs concerning their cooperation with cancer care facilities based on the criteria for SHF. The participatory study was developed and conducted with representatives of the House of Cancer Self-Help and the federal associations of cancer self-help.

resultsAccording to the SHG leaders, about 80% of their members primarily find their way to an SHG via other patients and only less than 50% more or less frequently via hospitals or rehabilitation clinics. The quality of cooperation with cancer centres, hospitals and rehabilitation clinics, however, is rated as good to very good by more than 70% of the respondents. Nine out of 10 quality criteria for SHF are fully or at least partially implemented, the values vary between 53% and 87%. Overall, 58% of the SHG leaders feel well to be very well integrated into care facilities.

conclusionsThe results show a positive assessment of the involvement of SHGs in oncological care, but differences between inpatient and outpatient care and low referrals to SHGs are prominent. The concept of SHF is a feasible solution for a systematic and measurable involvement of SHGs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The perspectives and insight of patient representatives obtained through qualitative interviews were directly incorporated into this study. Representatives of cancer self-help organizations were involved in the development of the questionnaire, reviewed it for content and comprehensibility, and further helped to recruit participants.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsSelf-Help GroupsCross-Sectional StudiesGermanyHealth BehaviorHumansSurveys and Questionnairescancer carecooperationpatient involvementpatient participationpeer supportquality managementself-help friendliness

Identifiers

PMID36129136
PMCPMC9700191
OpenAlexW4296706139

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.