Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36879318›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Understanding the Cures Act Information Blocking Rule in cancer care: a mixed methods exploration of patient and clinician perspectives and recommendations for policy makers.

Joanna Veazey Brooks, Carli Zegers, Christian T Sinclair, Elizabeth Wulff-Burchfield, Amanda R Thimmesch, Daniel English, Heather V Nelson-Brantley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Joanna Veazey BrooksUniversity of Kansas School of Medicine, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA.
Carli ZegersUniversity of Kansas School of Nursing, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA.
Christian T SinclairUniversity of Kansas School of Medicine, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA.
Elizabeth Wulff-BurchfieldUniversity of Kansas School of Medicine, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA.
Amanda R ThimmeschUniversity of Kansas School of Nursing, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA.
Daniel EnglishUniversity of Kansas School of Nursing, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA.
Heather V Nelson-BrantleyUniversity of Kansas School of Nursing, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA. hnelson-brantley@kumc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 21

methodsWe conducted a convergent parallel mixed methods study to understand patient and clinician reactions to the Information Blocking Rule in cancer care and what they would like policy makers to consider. Twenty-nine patients and 29 clinicians completed interviews and surveys. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews. Interview and survey data were analyzed separately, then linked to generate a full interpretation of the results.

resultsOverall, patients felt more positive about the policy than clinicians. Patients wanted policy makers to understand that patients are unique, and they want to individualize their preferences for receiving health information with their clinicians. Clinicians highlighted the uniqueness of cancer care, due to the highly sensitive information that is shared. Both patients and clinicians were concerned about the impact on clinician workload and stress. Both expressed an urgent need for tailoring implementation of the policy to avoid unintended harm and distress for patients.

conclusionsOur findings provide suggestions for optimizing the implementation of this policy in cancer care. Dissemination strategies to better inform the public about the policy and improve clinician understanding and support are recommended. Patients who have serious illness or diagnoses such as cancer and their clinicians should be included when developing and enacting policies that could have a significant impact on their well-being. Patients with cancer and their cancer care teams want the ability to tailor information release based on individual preferences and goals. Understanding how to tailor implementation of the Information Blocking Rule is essential for retaining its benefits and minimizing unintended harm for patients with cancer.

Indexed as

Administrative PersonnelNeoplasmsEmotionsHumansPatientsPolicyWorkload21st Century Cures ActCancer careInformation Blocking RuleOpen NotesPatient-clinician communicationPolicy implementation

Identifiers

PMID36879318
PMCPMC9990332

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.