Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37720397›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2023

Exploring the clinical utility of a brief screening measure of unmet supportive care needs in people with high-grade glioma.

Rachel Campbell, Mona Faris, Joanne Shaw, Georgia K B Halkett, Dianne Legge, Eng-Siew Koh, Anna K Nowak, Meera R Agar, Tamara Ownsworth, Kerryn E Pike and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Article
  4. Neuro-oncology practice · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors.

Rachel CampbellPsycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Mona FarisPsycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Joanne ShawPsycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Georgia K B HalkettCurtin School of Nursing/ Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia.
Dianne LeggeCurtin School of Nursing/ Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia.
Eng-Siew KohSouth West Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1664-2513
Anna K NowakDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Meera R AgarCentre for Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation (IMPACCT), University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tamara OwnsworthSchool of Applied Psychology and Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Australia.
Kerryn E PikeSchool of Applied Psychology and Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Australia.
Raymond J ChanCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, South Australia, Australia.
Haryana M DhillonPsycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4039-5169

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: People living with high-grade glioma (HGG) have diverse and complex needs. Screening aims to detect patients with Methods: Secondary analysis of data collected in a prospective cohort study of 116 people with HGG who completed the Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34) and a brain cancer-specific needs survey (BrTSCNS) during chemoradiation (T1) and 6 months later (T2). The SCNS-ST9 contains a subset of 9 items from the SCNS-SF34. Data analysis determined the number of individuals with unmet needs on the SCNS-SF34 and the BrTSCNS, not identified as having some level of need by the SCNS-ST9. Results: Overall, 3 individuals (T1: 2.6% [3/116]; T2: 4.8% [3/63]) at each time point reported other unmet needs on the SCNS-SF34 that were missed by the SCNS-ST9. Domain-specific screening items missed a higher proportion of individuals (3.2%-26%), particularly in the psychological and health systems domains. Only 1 individual with brain cancer-specific needs was missed by SCNS-ST9 overall. Conclusion: Findings demonstrate the sensitivity and clinical utility of a brief screening tool (SCNS-ST9) of unmet needs in people with HGG. Routine use of this screening tool, supported by clinical pathways, may improve access to support services, potentially reducing the burden of disease for these patients.

Indexed as

brain cancerhigh-grade gliomascreeningsupportive careunmet needs

Identifiers

PMID37720397
PMCPMC10502777

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.