ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Clinical Utility of Integrated Multidisciplinary Patient-Centered Information in Breast Cancer Care: A Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and assess the clinical utility of the integrated multidisciplinary patient-centered information (PCI) written by various healthcare professionals for promoting patient-centered care in the treatment and care of breast cancer patients. Methods: This study employed a convergent mixed methods interventional design in which Control and Intervention were compared by integrating both quantitative and qualitative results obtained from questionnaires and verbatim transcripts. In three breast cancer cases, a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) using a conventional electronic health record (EHR) viewer was designated Control, and a MDTM using a conventional EHR viewer plus the integrated multidisciplinary PCI was designated Intervention. Questionnaires, which consisted of questions about efficiency and patient-centeredness employing a 5-point Likert scale, were analyzed statistically using Wilcoxon rank test and summary statistics. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis hybrid approach. Results: Three surgical oncologists and three nurses (ward, outpatient chemotherapy, and palliative care) participated in the MDTMs for both Control and Intervention. The quantitative data suggested that there were statistically significant differences between Control and Intervention (p<0.05), with Intervention superior to Control from the viewpoints of efficiency and patient-centeredness. The qualitative data suggested that the MDTM for Intervention involved more PCI and promoted shared understanding from early in the meeting. Synthesis of both the quantitative and qualitative results suggested that use of the integrated multidisciplinary PCI in MDTMs may facilitate the utilization of PCI and lead to more efficient and patient-centered discussions and decision-making to promote patient-centered care. Conclusion: Integrating the PCI obtained from medical records of various healthcare specialists already documented in the hospital information system could prove to be helpful for supporting MDTMs and routine clinical practice without placing an additional burden on busy healthcare professionals while also promoting the digital transformation of healthcare.
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.