ArticleBMJ supportive & palliative care2025
Enhanced supportive care in cancer centres: national cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMJ supportive & palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Models, outcomes, barriers, and facilitators of supportive care in cancer: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Chronic Psychological Stress in Oncogenesis: Multisystem Crosstalk and Multimodal Interventions.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectives
methodsThis national cross-sectional survey of 53 cancer centres had two parts. Part 1: Service details, was directed to lead ESC/SPC nurses or consultants about service configuration, and Part 2: Clinician understanding, targeting conceptual understanding of service aims including ESC/SPC teams and oncology consultants (n=262 surveys). Multiple-choice questions explored service provision, referral triggers and evidence of integration with oncology, with free-text responses. Quantitative results were analysed with Fischer's exact test. Qualitative free text was line-by-line coded by two authors independently to derive themes.
results56% (30/53) of SPC and ESC teams and 14% (14/100) of oncologists responded. Those involved in ESC self-reported greater integration with oncology compared with non-ESC teams, for example, joint case discussions (64.3%, 9/14 vs 23.1%, 3/13, p=0.05), and timelier patient referral ((>6 months before death vs <6 months) (10/14 vs 4/13, p=0.06)). Qualitative themes described ambiguity in definitions of supportive and palliative terms and a perception of timelier identification of patients when ESC was involved.
conclusionProviders of ESC perceive greater integration with oncology and potentially timelier referral for patients compared with teams not delivering ESC. Terminology around SPC and ESC remains uncertain across England.
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.