ReviewCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2024
Shared-Care in Complex Malignant Hematology: An Integrative Review Using the RE-AIM Evaluation Framework.
Review in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complex malignant hematology (CMH) shared-care programs have been established to support patients with access to care closer to home. This integrative review examined what is known about CMH shared-care using the RE-AIM evaluation framework. We searched five electronic databases for articles published until 16 January 2024. Articles were included if they were qualitative or quantitative studies, reviews or discussion papers, and reported on an experience with shared-care (defined as a reciprocal, ongoing patient-sharing relationship between a specialist centre and community hospital) for patients with hematological malignancies, and examined one or more aspects of the RE-AIM framework. The search yielded 6523 articles; 10 articles describing eight shared-care experiences. Indicators of reach were reported for 65% of the programs, and emphasized some patient eligibility criteria. Effectiveness indicators were reported for 28% of programs, and suggested favourable survival outcomes within a shared-care model; however, health system impact and quality of life studies were lacking. Indicators of adoption and implementation were reported for 56% and 42% of programs, respectively, and emphasized multidisciplinary teams, infrastructure support, and communication strategies. Maintenance was not reported. Common elements contribute to the implementation of existing CMH shared-care programs; however, a formal evaluation remains an area of need.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.