Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38925706›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

What is the economic and social return on investment for telephone cancer information and support services in Australia? An evaluative social return on investment study protocol.

Nikki McCaffrey, Victoria White, Lidia Engel, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Liliana Orellana, Patricia M Livingston, Christine L Paul, Sanchia Aranda, Daswin De Silva, Jessica Bucholc and 9 more

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. PanSupport: a community model of cancer supportive care provision.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Nikki McCaffreyDeakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University Faculty of Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia nikki.mccaffrey@deakin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-3684-3723
Victoria WhiteSchool of Psychology, Deakin University Faculty of Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6619-8484
Lidia EngelMonash University Health Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7959-3149
Cathrine MihalopoulosMonash University Health Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7127-9462
Liliana OrellanaBiostatistics Unit, Deakin University Faculty of Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3736-4337
Patricia M LivingstonDeakin University Faculty of Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6616-3839
Christine L PaulSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0504-5246
Sanchia ArandaDepartment of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4170-9799
Daswin De SilvaCentre for Data Analytics and Cognition, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
Jessica BucholcDeakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University Faculty of Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0758-2704
Alison M HutchinsonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University Faculty of Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5065-2726
Anna SteinerConsumer Engagement, Cancer Council Victoria, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0009-0007-4946-1456
Julie RatcliffeCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7365-1988
Katherine LaneMediStays, South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Danielle SpenceStrategy & Support, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Todd HarperCancer Council Victoria, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0009-0004-6324-881X
Ann LivingstoneDeakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University Faculty of Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6836-0382
Elizabeth FradgleySchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Claire Louise HutchinsonCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4289-8886

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOver 50% of people affected by cancer report unmet support needs. To address unmet information and psychological needs, non-government organisations such as Cancer Councils (Australia) have developed state-based telephone cancer information and support services. Due to competing demands, evidence of the value of these services is needed to ensure that future investment makes the best use of scarce resources. This research aims to determine the costs and broader economic and social value of a telephone support service, to inform future funding and service provision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A codesigned, evaluative social return on investment analysis (SROI) will be conducted to estimate and compare the costs and monetised benefits of Cancer Council Victoria's (CCV) telephone support line, 13 11 20, over 1-year and 3-year benefit periods. Nine studies will empirically estimate the parameters to inform the SROI and calculate the ratio (economic and social value to value invested): step 1 mapping outcomes (in-depth analysis of CCV's 13 11 20 recorded call data; focus groups and interviews); step 2 providing evidence of outcomes (comparative survey of people affected by cancer who do and do not call CCV's 13 11 20; general public survey); step 3 valuing the outcomes (financial proxies, value games); step 4 establishing the impact (Delphi); step 5 calculating the net benefit and step 6 service improvement (discrete choice experiment (DCE), 'what if' analysis). Qualitative (focus groups, interviews) and quantitative studies (natural language processing, cross-sectional studies, Delphi) and economic techniques (willingness-to-pay, financial proxies, value games, DCE) will be applied. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for each of the studies will be sought independently as the project progresses. So far, ethics approval has been granted for the first two studies. As each study analysis is completed, results will be disseminated through presentation, conferences, publications and reports to the partner organisations.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisNeoplasmsAustraliaHumansResearch DesignSocial SupportTelephoneHealth economicsHEALTH ECONOMICSNatural Language ProcessingONCOLOGYQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID38925706
PMCPMC11202755

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.