Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36581767›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

The care cascade following a supportive management intervention for patients presenting to a radiation oncology clinic.

Kaycee Moshofsky, Anastacia Aripov, Eric Chang, Michelle Bednar, Peter Bennett, Susan Hedlund, Kiri Cook

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Triage tools to inform the prioritisation of physical health services following a diagnosis of cancer: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kaycee MoshofskyDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Anastacia AripovDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Eric ChangDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Michelle BednarDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Peter BennettDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Susan HedlundDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Kiri CookDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. cooki@ohsu.edu.
Oregon Health & Science University · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with cancer have many psychosocial needs, some of which may be addressed by implementation of a screening tool. However, it is unknown what ultimately happens (i.e., the "care cascade") to patients following these interventions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the care cascade for patients following the implementation of a psychosocial needs screening tool. This was a prospective cohort study conducted at a university hospital radiation oncology clinic. Participants who were 18 years or older and presenting for their initial radiation oncology appointment were asked to complete a screening survey. From December 2019 to January 2021, 242 patients completed the survey. 70% of patients were seen for consideration of definitive therapy. 62% of patients checked "yes" to at least one item, most commonly supportive/palliative care (33%), exercise/PT (26%) and advance care planning (26%). Among definitive patients, the most common were supportive/palliative care (33%) and exercise/PT (26%). Among palliative patients, the most common were supportive/palliative care (42%) and advance care planning (32%). Participants were followed for 6 months after taking the survey. 74% of patients with a positive screening survey were contacted by a social worker and/or had a new referral placed with 47% of those patients ultimately attending a new appointment. Screening tools are commonly implemented to quickly identify needs in oncology patients. This study tracked patients following this type of intervention to determine what proportion of patients ultimately received care related to the identified need. Despite the majority of patients being referred to a relevant provider, fewer than half ultimately attended appointments. The combination of a screening tool with social work triage may be an effective way to distribute resources and properly route patients to supportive care providers.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsRadiation OncologyHumansMedical OncologyPalliative CareProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36581767
PMCPMC9800361
OpenAlexW4313332522

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.