ReviewBMJ open quality2024
Mixed methods study of attitudes on location of gynaecological oncology outpatient care: a patient and healthcare professional questionnaire.
Review in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveGynaecological oncology place of care is often based on evolution of services, along historical professional boundaries, rather than user needs or preferences. We aimed to assess existing evidence, gather views of patients in the UK on their preferred place of outpatient care for gynaecological malignancies and evaluate alignment with preferences of healthcare professionals (HCP).
methodsWe performed a mixed methods study, including a scoping review, a patient survey and a healthcare practitioner questionnaire. We collected quantitative and qualitative data, performing content analysis to determine current practice and impact on patients.
resultsNo studies were identified in our scoping review. We received responses from 159 patients and 54 gynaecological oncology HCPs. There was a strong preference for a dedicated gynaecological oncology setting (89% somewhat or very happy) (p<0.0001). Fifty-three percent of patients were somewhat or very unhappy to have care colocated with general obstetrics and gynaecology services. Specifically, two key themes were identified through content analysis of qualitative data from patients: 'environment and getting this right is vital'; and 'our cancer should be the priority'. HCPs underestimated the strong patient preference to be seen in dedicated units. Of those who see patients within general obstetrics and gynaecology, only 50% said patients were seen at separate times/locations from obstetric patients.
conclusionThis study demonstrates the significant impact of place of care on gynaecological oncology patients, which may be underestimated by HCPs.
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.