Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37454053›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

"Currently flying blind" Stakeholders' perceptions of implementing statewide population-based cancer staging at diagnosis into the Western Australian Cancer Registry: a rapid qualitative process evaluation of the WA Cancer Staging Project.

Stephanie Smith, Richard W Trevithick, James Smith, Li Pung, Karen Taylor, Ninh Ha, Kevin E K Chai, Cristiana Garcia Gewerc, Rachael Moorin

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Closing the Feedback Loop: Improving Communication of Findings With Aboriginal Research Participants Through Participatory Action Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Stephanie SmithSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia. stephanie.smith@curtin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1932-6516
Richard W TrevithickDepartment of Health, Clinical Excellence Division, Western Australian Cancer Registry, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2620-7221
James SmithSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0448-8774
Li PungSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0239-7120
Karen TaylorCancer Network WA, North Metropolitan Health Service, Nedlands, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9586-9427
Ninh HaSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2789-5604
Kevin E K ChaiSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1645-0922
Cristiana Garcia GewercSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4730-2730
Rachael MoorinSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8742-7151

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer stage at diagnosis is essential for understanding cancer outcomes, guiding cancer control activities and healthcare services, and enabling benchmarking nationally and internationally. Yet, most cancer registries in Australia do not routinely collect this data. This study explored key stakeholders' perceptions of implementing cancer staging utilising Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning algorithms within the Western Australian Cancer Registry.

methodsPerceptions of key breast and colorectal cancer stakeholders, including registry staff, clinicians, consumers, data scientists, biostatisticians, data management, healthcare staff, and health researchers, were collected. Prospective and retrospective qualitative proformas at two-time points of the Western Australian Cancer Staging Project were employed. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to guide data collection, analysis and interpretation embedded in a Participatory Action Research approach. Data analysis also incorporated Framework Analysis and an adapted version of grading qualitative data using a visual traffic light labelling system to highlight the levels of positivity, negativity, and implementation concern.

resultsTwenty-nine pre-proformas and 18 post-proformas were completed online via REDCap. The grading and visual presentation of barriers and enablers aided interpretation and reviewing predicted intervention outcomes. Of the selected constructs, complexity (the perceived difficulty of the intervention) was the strongest barrier and tension for change (the situation needing change) was the strongest enabler. Implementing cancer staging into the Western Australian Cancer Registry was considered vital. Benefits included improved knowledge and understanding of various outcomes (e.g., treatment received as per Optimum Care Pathways) and benchmarking. Barriers included compatibility issues with current systems/workflows, departmental/higher managerial support, and future sustainment.

conclusionsThe findings aid further review of data gaps, additional cancer streams, standardising cancer staging and future improvements. The study offers an adapted version of a rapid qualitative data collection and analytic approach for establishing barriers and enablers. The findings may also assist other population-based cancer registries considering collecting cancer stage at diagnosis.

Indexed as

Data ManagementNeoplasmsAustraliaHumansNeoplasm StagingProspective StudiesRegistriesRetrospective StudiesCancer registryCancer staging at diagnosisPopulation-based cancer stagingProcess evaluationQualitative

Identifiers

PMID37454053
PMCPMC10349432

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.