ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2023
Co-design to deliver service improvement: What does this mean and how can we do it? A qualitative study with upper gastrointestinal cancer patients and professionals.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Co-design to deliver service improvement: What does this mean and how can we do it? A qualitative study with upper gastrointestinal cancer patients and professionals.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is strategic objective to incorporate the principles and practice of co-design into routine service development and improvement.
aimThe aim was to explore the concept and feasibility of service co-design with patients and health professionals with regards to the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer care pathway. METHODS AND
resultsQualitative telephone interviews and face-to-face focus groups in one region of England. Twenty patients completed interviews. Nine patients and ten professionals formed two focus groups. Patients were referred through the urgent (two week) GP referral route and were within six months of receiving their first treatment for an UGI cancer. Professionals were working as service planners and providers of the UGI cancer care pathway. Thematic analysis was undertaken. Six themes emerged: Responsibilities and expectations, Knowledge and understanding, Valuing patient input, Building relationships, Environment for co-design activities, Impact and effectiveness. Based on the themes a checklist has been created to provide practical suggestions for both professionals and patients on approaching co-design for service improvement.
conclusionThis study offers policy and practice partners a clearer understanding of co-design and factors to consider when approaching co-design in real life settings.
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.