Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38730547›Full record

ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2024

Unmet needs in people with high-grade glioma: defining criteria for stepped care intervention.

Mona M Faris, Haryana M Dhillon, Rachel Campbell, Georgia K B Halkett, Annie Miller, Raymond J Chan, Helen M Haydon, Ursula M Sansom-Daly, Eng-Siew Koh, Tamara Ownsworth and 9 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. A systematic review of the implementation of cancer-specific holistic needs assessment (HNA) in adult clinical practice, and applicability to the brain tumour population.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

19 authors.

Mona M FarisPsycho-Oncology Cooperative Research Group, School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7707-1331
Haryana M DhillonPsycho-Oncology Cooperative Research Group, School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4039-5169
Rachel CampbellPsycho-Oncology Cooperative Research Group, School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5013-8361
Georgia K B HalkettCurtin School of Nursing/Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4065-4044
Annie MillerCommunity advisory group, Psycho-Oncology Cooperative Research Group, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Raymond J ChanCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Helen M HaydonCentre for Online Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9880-9358
Ursula M Sansom-DalySchool of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia.
Eng-Siew KohSouth West Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1664-2513
Tamara OwnsworthSchool of Applied Psychology & Menzies Health Institute of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Anna K NowakMedical School, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Brian KellySchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Robyn LeonardBrain Cancer Collective, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kerryn E PikeSchool of Applied Psychology & Menzies Health Institute of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Dianne M LeggeCurtin School of Nursing/Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia.
Mark B PinkhamDivision of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia.
Meera R AgarImproving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation (IMPACCT) Research Centre, Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
BRAINS Program Group
Joanne ShawPsycho-Oncology Cooperative Research Group, School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

Brain Cancer Rehabilitation, Assessment, Intervention of Survivor Needs
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to define levels of unmet supportive care needs in people with primary brain tumor and to reach expert consensus on feasibility of addressing patients' needs in clinical practice.

methodsWe conducted secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of people diagnosed with high-grade glioma (n = 116) who completed the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form during adjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Participants were allocated to 1 of 3 categories: no need ("no need" for help on all items), low need ("low need" for help on at least 1 item, but no "moderate" or "high" need), or moderate/high need (at least 1 "moderate" or "high" need indicated). Clinical capacity to respond to the proportion of patients needing to be prioritized was assessed.

resultsOverall, 13% (n = 5) were categorized as no need, 23% (n = 27) low need, and 64% (n = 74) moderate/high need. At least 1 moderate/high need was reported in the physical and daily living domain (42%) and the psychological (34%) domain. In recognition of health system capacity, the moderate/high need category was modified to distinguish between moderate need ("moderate" need indicated for at least 1 item but "high" need was not selected for any item) and high need (at least 1 "high" need indicated). Results revealed 24% (n = 28) moderate need and 40% (n = 46) high need. Those categorized as high need indicated needing assistance navigating the health system and information.

conclusionsUsing four step allocations resulted in 40% of patients indicating high need. Categories may facilitate appropriate triaging and guide stepped models of healthcare delivery.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGliomaHealth Services Needs and DemandNeeds AssessmentActivities of Daily LivingAdultAgedChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38730547
PMCPMC11218915

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.