Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37666580›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2023

Improving personalised care and support planning for people living with treatable-but-not-curable cancer.

Clair Le Boutillier, Julian Jeyasingh-Jacob, Lizzie Jones, Alex King, Stephanie Archer, Catherine Urch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of the implementation of cancer-specific holistic needs assessment (HNA) in adult clinical practice, and applicability to the brain tumour population.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Models, outcomes, barriers, and facilitators of supportive care in cancer: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Clair Le BoutillierDivision of Methodologies, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK clair.le_boutillier@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3665-0315
Julian Jeyasingh-JacobDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7135-8470
Lizzie JonesDepartment of Surgery, Cardiovascular and Cancer, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Alex KingDepartment of Surgery, Cardiovascular and Cancer, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Stephanie ArcherDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Catherine UrchDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People living with treatable-but-not-curable (TbnC) cancer encounter cancer-related needs. While the NHS long-term plan commits to offering a Holistic Needs Assessment (HNA) and care plan to all people diagnosed with cancer, the content, delivery and timing of this intervention differs across practice. Understanding how people make sense of their cancer experience can support personalised care. A conceptual framework based on personal narratives of living with and beyond cancer (across different cancer types and all stages of the disease trajectory), identified three interlinked themes: Adversity, Restoration and Compatibility, resulting in the ARC framework.Our aim was to use the ARC framework to underpin the HNA to improve the experience of personalised care and support planning for people living with TbnC cancer. We used clinical work experience to operationalise the ARC framework and develop the intervention, called the ARC HNA, and service-level structure, called the ARC clinic. We sought expert input on the proposed content and structure from patients and clinicians through involvement and engagement activities. Delivered alongside standard care, the ARC HNA was piloted with patients on the TbnC cancer (myeloma and metastatic breast, prostate or lung) pathway, who were 6-24 months into their treatment. Iterations were made to the content, delivery and timing of the intervention based on user feedback.Fifty-one patients received the intervention. An average of 12 new concerns were identified per patient, and 96% of patients achieved at least one of their goals. Patients valued the space for reflection and follow-up, and clinicians valued the collaborative approach to meeting patients' supportive care needs. Compared with routine initial HNA and care plan completion rates of 13%, ARC clinic achieved 90% with all care plans shared with general practitioners. The ARC clinic adopts a novel and proactive approach to delivering HNAs and care plans in a meaningful and personalised way.

Indexed as

Holistic HealthNeeds AssessmentNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedClinical microsystemHealthcare quality improvementPatient-centred care

Identifiers

PMID37666580
PMCPMC10481844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.