Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38722536›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2025

Childhood cancer models of survivorship care: a scoping review of elements of care and reported outcomes.

Natalie Bradford, Raymond Javan Chan, Xiomara Skrabal Ross, Carla Thamm, Erin Sharwood, Jason Pole, Christine Cashion, Larissa Nekhlyudov

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. What Matters Most: The Top 10 Child and Adolescent Cancer Research Priorities in Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Late effects of the treatment of childhood cancer.World journal of clinical cases · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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.

Natalie BradfordCancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre and School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Natalie.bradford@qut.edu.au.
Raymond Javan ChanCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia.
Xiomara Skrabal RossCancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre and School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Carla ThammCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia.
Erin SharwoodEndocrinology Department, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Jason PoleQueensland Digital Health Centre, Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Christine CashionCancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre and School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Larissa NekhlyudovDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1173243National Health and Medical Research Council APP1194051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to systematically map elements of care and respective outcomes described in the literature for different models of post-treatment care for survivors of childhood cancer.

methodsMEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase were searched with combinations of free text terms, synonyms, and MeSH terms using Boolean operators and are current to January 2024. We included studies that described post-treatment cancer survivorship models of care and reported patient or service level elements of care or outcomes, which we mapped to the Quality of Cancer Survivorship Care Framework domains.

resultsThirty-eight studies with diverse designs were included representing 6101 childhood cancer survivors (or their parent/caregiver) and 14 healthcare professionals. A diverse range of models of care were reported, including paediatric oncologist-led long-term follow-up, multi-disciplinary survivorship clinics, shared-care, and primary care-led follow-up. Elements of care at the individual level most commonly included surveillance for cancer recurrence as well as assessment of physical and psychological effects. At the service level, satisfaction with care was frequently reported but few studies reported how treatment-related-late effects were managed. The evidence does not support one model of care over another.

conclusionsGaps in evidence exist regarding distal outcomes such as costs, health care utilization, and mortality, as well as understanding outcomes of managing chronic disease and physical or psychological effects. The findings synthesized in this review provide a valuable reference point for future service planning and evaluation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Decades of research highlight the importance of survivorship care for childhood cancer survivors who are at risk of serious treatment-related late effects. This review emphasizes there is no single, 'one-size fits all' approach for delivering such care to this vulnerable population.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsNeoplasmsSurvivorshipChildHumansCancer survivorshipFollow-up studiesModels of carePaediatricPatient-reported outcome measuresSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID38722536
PMCPMC12546495

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.