ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2024
Implementation of a Cancer Rehabilitation Navigation Program: a qualitative analysis of implementation determinants and strategies.
Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare providers' experience of delivering a heart rate variability feedback intervention to individuals living with spinal cord injury to inform implementation into usual care.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- An introduction to implementation science in rehabilitation medicine.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Feasibility of a Physiatry Assessment Clinic to Address Physical Impairment in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Following Neck Resection and Free Flap Reconstruction.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- The Use of Physiotherapy Navigators in Acute Cancer Care Settings: A Scoping Review.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Review
- Perceptions about oncological physiotherapy among health and social care professionals and cancer care managers: a co-design approach for implementation strategies.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Utilization outcomes of a cancer rehabilitation (CRNav) program: getting to the quadruple aim in cancer care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Exploring what influences the uptake of cancer rehabilitation services: a realist informed mixed-methods study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Implementing a Clinical Pathway for Needs Assessment and Supportive Care Interventions.JCO oncology practice · 2024Article
- Exploring patients and caregivers needs and experiences in oncological physiotherapy: a call for collaborative care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer rehabilitation navigation (CRNav) is a care delivery model that expedites identification and management of symptom-related functional morbidity for individuals undergoing cancer treatment. A CRNav program is unique in that it embeds a cancer rehabilitation professional in the cancer center for patient screening and assessment. The implementation of CRNav programs has not been studied and doing so could facilitate greater uptake of these programs.
methodsUsing implementation science frameworks, we conducted a qualitative, post-implementation analysis of a CRNav program that was implemented in 2019. Semi-structured, 1:1 interviews were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and a combination of deductive and inductive analyses, using a priori established codes, was used to assess the implementation context, and identify emergent themes of barriers and facilitators to implementation. Participant described implementation strategies were characterized and defined using the Expert Consensus Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy.
resultsEleven stakeholders including physicians, administrators, clinical staff, and patients, involved with program development and the implementation effort, participated in interviews. Predominant barriers to implementation included developing the program infrastructure, and lack of awareness of rehabilitation services among oncology professionals, predominant facilitators of implementation included; physical co-location of the navigator in the cancer center, individual characteristics of the navigator, and unique characteristics of the program. Strategies described that supported implementation included developing stakeholder interrelationships, evaluating and iteratively adapting the program, creating infrastructure, training and education, and supporting clinicians.
conclusionThis analysis uses implementation science to methodically analyze and characterize factors that may contribute to successful implementation of a CRNav program. These findings could be used alongside a prospective context-specific analysis to tailor future implementation efforts. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Implementing a CRNav program expedites a patient's direct contact with a rehabilitation provider complementing the cancer care delivery team, and providing an additive and often missing service.
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.