ArticleBMC cancer2025
An early evaluation of team consistency and scope optimization in team-based cancer care.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond silos: transdisciplinary collaboration for allied health clinicians providing stroke primary care.Frontiers in medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe British Columbia (BC) government has made significant investments towards the implementation of team-based care (TBC) in its provincial comprehensive cancer control program. TBC implementation involves purposeful efforts towards: (a) establishing/expanding multidisciplinary care teams, (b) optimizing scope of practice, and (c) increasing care team consistency. Study objectives include an early-phase evaluation of (i) the association between TBC elements and team effectiveness and (ii) staff perceptions of barrier and facilitators of team effectiveness.
methodsA series of five surveys over a 2-year period will be administered to prospectively evaluate the ongoing implementation of TBC. This study draws on data from the first of the five planned surveys, administered in May 2023. Eligible respondents included 299 program employees-spanning various roles such as physicians, nurses, and unit clerks-working within TBC at the time of survey deployment. The survey included both validated and researcher-developed questions that were either closed or open-ended, including measures of team composition, team consistency, team effectiveness, scope of practice, and demographics. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and regression analysis; qualitative data were analyzed guided by interpretive description methodology.
resultsCollected responses totaled 121, with the majority of respondents being women (76%), full-time employees (90%), and working in direct patient care (77%). Regression analyses indicated that (i) higher frequency of consistently working with the same team members and (ii) lower proportion of shifts practicing below scope are both significant predictors of higher team effectiveness ratings. Qualitative data highlighted staffing levels as a driver of under- and over-utilized scopes of practice. Furthermore, effective communication, enhanced knowledge of each team member's scope of practice, and strong interpersonal relationships were highlighted as contributing factors to effectiveness among multidisciplinary care teams.
conclusionsPreliminary findings from the first of five prospective surveys highlight team consistency and role optimization as drivers of effective teamwork in the early implementation of a team-based model of cancer care. Future research should explore contextual factors that influence cancer care staff and clinicians' perceptions of effectiveness.
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.