Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39738715›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024

Equity in cancer care: mixed methods clinical utility analysis of the Nursing Equity Assessment Tool (NEAT) to identify disadvantage in newly diagnosed cancer patients.

Holly Chung, Elizabeth Crone, Karla Gough, Amelia Hyatt, Donna Milne, Meinir Krishnasamy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Assessing Unmet Social Needs in Multiple Sclerosis Care in Australia: A Qualitative Assessment of Feasibility, Barriers and Enablers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Social Needs Screening Tools for Clinical Populations in Australia and New Zealand: A Scoping Review and Critical Analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Holly Chung *Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1608-4213
Elizabeth Crone *Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2705-7459
Karla GoughDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2819-4217
Amelia HyattDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2322-7817
Donna MilneDepartment of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9874-2023
Meinir KrishnasamyDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia. meik@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3050-4213

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIndividuals who experience complex biomedical factors and poorer social determinants of health (SDoH) have worse cancer outcomes than other people with cancer. This study appraised the clinical utility of the Nursing Equity Assessment Tool (NEAT), designed to facilitate early and systematic identification of such factors to optimise timely referral for support.

methodsA prospective, mixed-methods case-series study was conducted at a specialist cancer centre. The NEAT comprises 15 items mapping to four biopsychosocial domains. Clinical nurse consultants (CNCs) completed the NEAT with newly diagnosed patients during consultations. Semi-structured interviews exploring clinical utility aspects (appropriateness, acceptability, and practicability) were undertaken with patients at 2 weeks, and CNCs at 12- and 24-week post-completion of the NEAT; then analysed using qualitative content analysis. Participant characteristics were collected via self-report and medical records. Patient-reported outcome measures were completed prior to interviews. Healthcare utilisation data were gathered 12- and 24-week post-completion of the NEAT. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively using measures of association.

resultsThirty-seven patients and seven CNCs participated. All participants considered the NEAT highly acceptable and appropriate, with potential to improve patient outcomes. Feedback recommended refinements to content and CNC training. Implementation considerations included advocacy for service investment to enable timely receipt of support to address disadvantage.

conclusionsPatients and CNCs considered this novel point-of-care tool was acceptable, appropriate, and demonstrated promise to help quickly identify and address newly diagnosed cancer patients at risk of complex care needs stemming from medical and non-medical factors.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHealth EquityHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresProspective StudiesSocial Determinants of HealthCancerCancer nursingClinical utilityEquityNursing interventionNursing practice innovationOncologySocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID39738715
PMCPMC11683018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.