ArticleBMJ open2024
Exploring what influences the uptake of cancer rehabilitation services: a realist informed mixed-methods study.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of physical functional impairments and associations with quality of life: a cross-sectional study in Chinese cancer survivors.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Perceptions about oncological physiotherapy among health and social care professionals and cancer care managers: a co-design approach for implementation strategies.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate how uptake of cancer rehabilitation services is affected by information provision and whether it is influenced by people's perception and attitudes towards rehabilitation interventions and therapies.
designThis study followed a realist informed mixed-methods design. Descriptive secondary analysis of a cancer rehabilitation database containing information about number of people attending services, their diagnosis and sex and semi-structured interviews with people affected by cancer (PABC) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) were conducted.
settingCancer rehabilitation services located in two cancer centres in South Wales, UK.
participantsPABC who received care from any of the included cancer rehabilitation services. HCPs providing cancer rehabilitation at any of the included services.
interventionsExercise-based cancer rehabilitation, fatigue management, acupuncture and allied health professional support were provided as cancer rehabilitation.
resultsTwenty HCPs and 15 PABC were recruited for semi-structured interviews across the two services. The number of database records used for the secondary analysis ranged from 212 to 347 between 2014 and 2017. Based on descriptive analysis of these records and thematic analysis of HCPs' interviews, uptake of cancer rehabilitation services often fluctuated. This could be attributed to PABC reporting issues with information provision on available services. Based on PABC's accounts, they learnt about cancer rehabilitation in various ways, often by chance via word of mouth. Information provision was influenced by several issues including lack of consensus on what cancer rehabilitation means, the wider multidisciplinary team's (MDT) perception and knowledge on cancer rehabilitation, the prevailing medical model in healthcare and the lack of routine provision of services. The perception and attitude of PABC did not seem to inhibit uptake and information provision.
conclusionsTo modify these inhibiting issues, the education of the wider MDT regarding the aim, modalities and importance of cancer rehabilitation is crucial.
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.