ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Co-Design of the Structured Personalised Assessment for Reviews After Cancer (SPARC) Intervention.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Co-research in the development of AI and digital health tools for cancer management and care: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Using co-design to identify healthcare priorities for patients with incurable head and neck cancer.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAn increasing number of people are living beyond cancer with unmet health needs. The aim of this study was to co-design a digital intervention to improve health outcomes for people who have completed potentially curative treatment for cancer.
methodsTwo co-design workshops were held with patients, clinicians (including oncologists, general practitioners and nurses), digital/computing science experts and third-sector representatives. At workshop one, problems and gaps in care were identified and intervention ideas were generated. At workshop two, a prototype intervention was discussed and refined.
resultsThe workshops were attended by 43 people in total: 26 at event one and 23 at event two (six attended both events). Patients valued relationship-based care and felt supported during hospital treatment. Patients 'fell off a cliff' after discharge, and there was consensus that more could be done in primary care to support those living beyond cancer. It was proposed that cancer reviews could be integrated into UK primary care chronic disease management activities. A digital form, the 'Structured Personalised Assessment for Reviews after Cancer' (SPARC) tool, was developed to support asynchronous consultations that would cover the breadth of problems and health promotion activities required for high-quality primary care for cancer. SPARC could also identify those without problems who do not require review.
conclusionSPARC has been co-designed to support brief but comprehensive cancer review consultations between primary care clinicians and their patients. SPARC aligns with best practice guidelines. The next step is to evaluate SPARC with patients and in general practices. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and stakeholder engagement was at the centre of this research study. Cancer organisations such as 'CLAN' cancer support, Prostate Cancer Scotland and Cancer Research UK helped us to engage with patients. The Aberdeen University Institute of Applied Health Science Patient Public Involvement group were also instrumental in sense-checking and improving the materials for the second workshop. We plan to involve our patient and carer partners in designing the next stages of our research (including study materials, processes and methods) so that they will be at the centre of evaluating the intervention that they have been instrumental in designing.
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.