Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36214877›Full record

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

'Share your views'-international consultation informs a patient engagement strategy for the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer.

Hannah R Wardill, Yin Ting Cheung, Anna Boltong, Andreas Charalambous, Bogda Koczwara, Maryam Lustberg, Elaine Tomlins, Joanne M Britto

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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Can cancer go green? It's up to us.Frontiers in oncology · 2023
    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

8 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Hannah R WardillSchool of Biomedicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Yin Ting CheungSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9874-8938
Anna BoltongCancer Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Andreas CharalambousCyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus.
Bogda KoczwaraFlinders Medical Centre and Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Maryam LustbergSection of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Elaine TomlinsThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Joanne M BrittoVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Australia. joanne.britto@unimelb.edu.au.
Chinese University of Hong Kong · HKFlinders University · AURoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute · AUUniversity of Turku · FIUNSW Sydney · AUVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre · AUYale Cancer Center · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEngaging with patients and the public (consumers and community) enhances the relevance of cancer control developments; however, challenges remain to integrate into processes. Medical and other professional societies are well-positioned to foster and endorse best practice.

methodsBetween October and December 2021, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) conducted a global consultation with those who identified as "people affected by cancer". Recruitment to an online cross-sectional survey was by a combination of purposive and convenience sampling to determine preferred terminologies and experiences with MASCC and other cancer-related societies.

resultsThe survey was completed by 343 respondents from 29 countries, a majority being female (78.1%) and younger than 60 years of age (62.1%). Respondents preferred to be identified as 'patient' from a set of defined terms; however, this only accounted for 49-67% of selected response across geographical regions. Only 22.2% of respondents had engaged previously with MASCC, of whom 90.8% reported a positive experience through involvement with education and information, networking and collaboration, and practice guidelines. Respondents perceived areas of opportunity as early involvement in decision-making, educational initiatives, open communication, and information sharing. Across all geographical regions, responders chose a preference to contribute to future consumer research (53.0%), policy (31.7%) or consumer engagement activities (56.9%) including participation in a conference session (65.0%) or patient day (47.9%).

conclusionsThis survey provides a first insight into how consumers wish to engage with MASCC. These values will be embedded into a strategy that aims for effective and sustainable partnerships with multinational consumers.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient ParticipationCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleReferral and ConsultationConsumer and community involvementPatient and public advocacyPeople affected by cancerSupportive cancer careTerminology

Identifiers

PMID36214877
PMCPMC9548426
OpenAlexW4303984363

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.