Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37773596›Full record

ArticleClinical child psychology and psychiatry2024

Evaluating end of treatment care of young people with cancer.

Eve Twivy, Helen Griffiths, Matthew Td Knight

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical child psychology and psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eve TwivyOxford Institute of Clinical Psychology Training and Research, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, University of Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6173-4153
Helen GriffithsOxford Children's Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Matthew Td KnightOxford Institute of Clinical Psychology Training and Research, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, University of Oxford, UK.
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExisting literature implies there may be gaps in post-treatment support for young people with cancer. This service evaluation explored the needs and experiences of young people when ending cancer treatment in a UK children's hospital to inform service provisions.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with nine young people, aged 13-18 years, who had finished active cancer treatment and were receiving follow-up care. The data was analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsFour main themes were developed: being in the dark (i.e. limited awareness of what happens when treatment ends); separation from the hospital (i.e. the loss of valued support from staff); consequences of cancer (i.e. managing ongoing psychological and physical effects); and getting back to normal life (i.e. shifting from hospital to everyday life).

conclusionsRecommendations for improving clinical practice were made. Greater preparedness for ending treatment could be achieved by clearly setting out ongoing care arrangements, providing resource packs, having opportunities to mark the end of treatment, and offering peer support. To identify specific post-treatment needs, there should be an end of treatment multidisciplinary review and space for young people to share how they are feeling in follow-up medical appointments.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentChildHumansQualitative ResearchadolescentCancerend of treatmentqualitativeservice evaluation

Identifiers

PMID37773596
PMCPMC10945980
OpenAlexW4387168245

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.