Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39073084›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of general practice2024

Multidisciplinary management of patients with cancer in France: The SINPATIC qualitative study.

Laura Moscova, Matthieu Lustman, Jacques Cittée, Sébastien Dawidowicz, Florence Canoui-Poitrine, Christophe Tournigand, Kelly Perlaza, William Mirat, Emilie Ferrat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of general practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Laura MoscovaDépartement de Médecine Générale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France.ORCID 0009-0009-3444-0999
Matthieu LustmanDépartement de Médecine Générale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France.
Jacques CittéeDépartement de Médecine Générale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France.
Sébastien DawidowiczDépartement de Médecine Générale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France.
Florence Canoui-PoitrineUniv Paris Est Creteil, INSERM, IMRB, CEpiA Team, Creteil, France.
Christophe TournigandAP-HP, Henri-Mondor Hospital, Public Health department, Créteil, France.
Kelly PerlazaDépartement de Médecine Générale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France.
William MiratDépartement de Médecine Générale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6143-7837
Emilie FerratDépartement de Médecine Générale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8885-9634

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth policymakers have tried to improve the care pathway for cancer patients by improving collaboration between participating healthcare professionals by involving the general practitioner (GP). OBJECTIVE(S): To explore how patients, GPs, oncologists and nurses interacted and how they perceived, in their practice, professional roles, collaboration, and cancer care pathways.

methodsBetween January 2018 and December 2021, we conducted a qualitative study that combined phenomenology and a general inductive analysis, based on semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and their GPs, oncologists, and nurses in France.

resultsOur analysis of 59 interviews showed that the stakeholders had different perceptions of the cancer care pathway. Task division was implicit and depended on what each health professional thought he/she should be doing; this led to the blurring of certain tasks (announcement of the diagnosis, coordination, and follow-up). The healthcare professionals were stuck in frameworks centred on their own needs and expectations and were unaware of the other health professionals' needs and expectations. Outside the hospital, GPs and nurses worked in isolation; they were not aware of the other stakeholders and did not communicate with them. GPs and nurses justified this attitude by the lack of a perceived need. Interprofessional communication varied as a function of the needs, involvement and knowledge of the other health professionals and was often mediated by the patient.

conclusionIn the cancer management in France, to improve cancer care pathway, there is a need to train healthcare professionals in interprofessional collaboration delivering care tailored to patient needs and preferences.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGeneral PractitionersNeoplasmsQualitative ResearchAdultAgedCooperative BehaviorCritical PathwaysFemaleFranceHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationInterprofessional RelationsInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedCancercare coordinationcare pathwaysprimary carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID39073084
PMCPMC11288201

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.