ArticleBMJ open2025
Investigating processes to support and improve informed financial consent in Australian cancer services: an implementation process mapping study and analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThrough implementation process mapping and thematic analysis, this study aimed to understand existing pathways of established informed financial consent (IFC) processes to develop general recommendations for implementing IFC in various cancer care settings.
designImplementation science-based process mapping qualitative study. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed the development of interview questions and a process map outlining a normative process or workflow for patient consults was used during the interviews.
settingAustralian cancer care provider health services.
participantsAustralian healthcare professionals who provide services to cancer patients and indicated having an IFC process or activities in their service were approached through existing networks to participate in a semistructured interview.
resultsTen healthcare professionals who regularly worked with cancer patients were interviewed. IFC processes varied by professional specialty (ie, general practice, surgery, radiation oncology and medical oncology) and healthcare settings (eg, public and private). An aggregated process map that highlights the key components of IFC processes discussed was created and includes strategies such as centralised points of contact, consolidated information delivery, reiteration of information by others or at various time-points and the use of follow-up appointments to revisit the financial impact of treatment. Interview themes identified barriers and facilitators such as training, resources and templates that to support or hinder IFC in accordance with CFIR domains.
conclusionsThe themes and aggregated process map provide timely recommendations for healthcare professionals who provide services to cancer patients to facilitate IFC with their patients prior to treatment or as treatment changes. These practical actions will assist healthcare professionals and services providing cancer care to integrate IFC practices and processes into their routine patient interactions. Further work should identify implementation strategies to integrate and scale-up these evidence-based IFC processes and practices across the healthcare system.
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.