ArticleBMC medical education2023
Clinicians' knowledge and understanding regarding multidisciplinary treatment implementation: a study in municipal public class III grade A hospitals in Southwest China.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incentive Configuration Pathways for Standardization of Cancer Multidisciplinary Teams in China: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Implementation and Outcomes of a Standardized Multidisciplinary Treatment Outpatient Model in Two Pediatric Tertiary Hospitals.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Patients participation in multidisciplinary management in gastric cancer: regulation comparison and expert survey among major countries.Korean journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Participation in Multidisciplinary Teams Among Healthcare Professionals: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Tertiary Public Hospitals in China.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have highlighted several problems in the implementation of multidisciplinary treatment (MDT) from a managerial perspective. However, no study has addressed these issues from clinicians' perspective. Therefore, this study aimed to identify and address the existing problems in MDT by investigating what clinicians know and think about the implementation of MDT.
methodsA self-designed questionnaire was used to evaluate clinicians' understanding of MDT in municipal public Class III Grade A hospitals in Western China using a cross-sectional questionnaire study.
resultsOverall, 70.56% of clinicians knew the scope of MDT, and 63.41% knew the process of MDT. Professional title (P = 0.001; OR: 2.984; 95% CI: 1.590-5.603), participated in MDT (P = 0.017; OR: 1.748; 95% CI: 1.103-2.770), and application for MDT (P = 0.000; OR: 2.442; 95% CI: 1.557-3.830) had an impact on clinicians' understanding of the scope of MDT. Professional title (P = 0.002; OR:2.446; 95% CI: 1.399-4.277) and participation in MDT (P = 0.000; OR: 2.414; 95% CI: 1.581-3.684) influenced clinicians' understanding of the scope of MDT. More than 70% of the respondents thought that MDT was important in medical care. However, less than half of the clinicians who had attended MDT were currently satisfied with the results of MDT.
conclusionMost clinicians agreed that MDT was crucial in clinical care. However, more than a third of clinicians did not fully understand the scope and process of MDT. Appropriate measures are necessary to improve the quality of MDT. Our study suggests that healthcare administration should strengthen MDT education, especially for new and young clinicians.
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.