Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38486219›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Aligning organisational priorities and implementation science for cancer research.

Stephanie Best, Karin Thursky, Mark Buzza, Marlena Klaic, Sanne Peters, Lisa Guccione, Alison Trainer, Jillian Francis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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. Process evaluation of a person-centred outcome measures-based quality improvement program in a hospital-based palliative care in mainland China.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  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

8 authors.

Stephanie BestUniversity of Melbourne; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; Australian Genomics, Melbourne, Australia. stephanie.best@unimelb.edu.au.
Karin ThurskyPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre; Royal Melbourne Hospital; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Mark BuzzaVCCC, Melbourne, Australia.
Marlena KlaicUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Sanne PetersUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Lisa GuccionePeter MacCallum Cancer Centre; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Alison TrainerPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jillian FrancisUniversity of Melbourne; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe challenge of implementing evidence into routine clinical practice is well recognised and implementation science offers theories, models and frameworks to promote investigation into delivery of evidence-based care. Embedding implementation researchers into health systems is a novel approach to ensuring research is situated in day-to-day practice dilemmas. To optimise the value of embedded implementation researchers and resources, the aim of this study was to investigate stakeholders' views on opportunities for implementation science research in a cancer setting that holds potential to impact on care. The research objectives were to: 1) Establish stakeholder and theory informed organisation-level implementation science priorities and 2) Identify and prioritise a test case pilot implementation research project.

methodsWe undertook a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Participants held either a formal leadership role, were research active or a consumer advocate and affiliated with either a specialist cancer hospital or a cancer alliance of ten hospitals. Interview data were summarised and shared with participants prior to undertaking both thematic analysis, to identify priority areas for implementation research, and content analysis, to identify potential pilot implementation research projects. The selected pilot Implementation research project was prioritised using a synthesis of an organisational and implementation prioritisation framework - the organisational priority setting framework and APEASE framework.

resultsThirty-one people participated between August 2022 and February 2023. Four themes were identified: 1) Integration of services to address organisational priorities e.g., tackling fragmented services; 2) Application of digital health interventions e.g., identifying the potential benefits of digital health interventions; 3) Identification of potential for implementation research, including deimplementation i.e., discontinuing ineffective or low value care and; 4) Focusing on direct patient engagement e.g., wider consumer awareness of the challenges in delivering cancer care. Six potential pilot implementation research projects were identified and the EMBED project, to support clinicians to refer appropriate patients with cancer for genetic testing, was selected using the synthesised prioritisation framework.

conclusionsUsing a theory informed and structured approach the alignment between strategic organisational priorities and implementation research priorities can be identified. As a result, the implementation research focus can be placed on activities with the highest potential impact.

Indexed as

Implementation ScienceNeoplasmsHospitalsHumansPatient ParticipationResearchResearch PersonnelCancerImplementation scienceOrganisational prioritiesstakeholderTheory informed

Identifiers

PMID38486219
PMCPMC10938739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.