Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39979647›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025

Mixed methods scoping review of patients' experiences of urgent and emergency cancer care.

A L Hurley-Wallace, J Defty, A Richardson, R Wagland

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Febrile neutropenia in patients treated with chemotherapy/immune checkpoint inhibition: a MASCC consensus statement.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Mixed methods scoping review of patients' experiences of urgent and emergency cancer care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    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

4 authors.

A L Hurley-WallaceSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
J DeftyUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
A RichardsonUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
R WaglandSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. R.Wagland@soton.ac.uk.

Funding

University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust GRT0710
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with oncological emergencies require immediate specialist cancer care to ensure optimum outcomes. This is often a stressful, time-sensitive situation for patients and their families who describe having to navigate complex care pathways to access urgent treatment. Acute oncology was established as a subspecialty in the UK in 2009, with the goal to streamline emergency cancer care. Patient experiences of urgent care in acute oncology contexts have not specifically been explored; hence, it is unknown whether patient experiences of emergency cancer care have improved. This may be due to lack of a patient-reported experience measure for this purpose.

methodsA mixed methods scoping review was conducted from 2010 to April 2024, with the aim of identifying core aspects of the care experience important to patients with cancer during an acute oncological episode, based on published research evidence. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods articles were sourced and screened in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review guidance. Core domains of patient experience were collated and summarised using mixed methods evidence synthesis.

resultsFifteen articles reporting on 14 unique studies were included. Issues important to patient experiences of emergency cancer care were described by patients, healthcare professional, and carer proxies. Studies captured experiences of various care delivery models including telehealth, in-person presentation to an Emergency Department, and acute oncology services. Six core domains of patient experience arose from the synthesis: managing emotional distress, being treated with compassion and respect, deciding when to seek help, hospital environment, quality of care and communication, and discharge planning.

conclusionsThis is the first review to identify existing literature on patient experiences of emergency cancer care, highlighting core domains of patient experience impactful for patients and their families. Patients' decisions about when to seek help and the impact of discussing palliative care needs during an emergency were more specific to emergency cancer care, compared to issues like the hospital environment, which can be important throughout a patient's cancer care journey. Results will help inform development of a patient-reported experience measure to allow healthcare providers to evaluate and continuously improve specialist urgent and emergency cancer care services.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesNeoplasmsPatient SatisfactionEmergency Service, HospitalHumansAcute oncologyOncological emergenciesPatient experienceScoping review urgent cancer care

Identifiers

PMID39979647
PMCPMC11842481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.