Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38296271›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Exploring important service characteristics of telephone cancer information and support services for callers: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative research.

Ann Livingstone, April Murphy, Jessica Bucholc, Lidia Engel, Katherine Lane, Danielle Spence, Nikki McCaffrey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

7 authors.

Ann LivingstoneDeakin University, Geelong, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Victoria, Australia a.livingstone@deakin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-6836-0382
April MurphyDeakin University, Geelong, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Victoria, Australia.
Jessica BucholcDeakin University, Geelong, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0758-2704
Lidia EngelSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University Health Economics Group (MUHEG), Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7959-3149
Katherine LaneCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Danielle SpenceCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Nikki McCaffreyDeakin University, Geelong, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3684-3723

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs cancer incidence continues to rise, challenges remain in how to communicate accurate, timely information to people with cancer, their families and healthcare professionals. One option is to provide support and comprehensive, tailored information via a telephone cancer information and support service (CISS). This systematic review aims to summarise the service characteristics of telephone CISS and identify what aspects of services are important from callers' perspectives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive literature search will be conducted for articles published from database inception to 30 March 2023 (OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and SocINDEX). Published, peer-reviewed, articles reporting qualitative research on the service characteristics of telephone CISS important to callers in any language will be included. One researcher will complete the searches, two researchers will independently screen results for eligible studies and a third researcher will resolve any disagreement. A narrative and thematic synthesis of studies will be provided. Study characteristics will be independently extracted by one researcher and checked by a second. Included studies' methodological quality will be evaluated independently by two researchers using the 2022 Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Studies Checklist. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research tool will assess the confidence of the review findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this research as it is a planned systematic review of published literature. Findings will be presented at leading cancer, health economic and supportive care conferences, published in a peer-reviewed journal, and disseminated via websites and social media. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023413897.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelNeoplasmsHumansQualitative ResearchResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicTelephoneAdult oncologyClinical auditQUALITATIVE RESEARCHSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID38296271
PMCPMC10831442

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.