ArticleFuture healthcare journal2025
'No right time, no right place' - conversations in acute cancer care - results of a Macmillan focus group.
Article in Future healthcare journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recognising dying: Will artificial intelligence (AI) help improve clinical accuracy?Future healthcare journal · 2026Article
- The commercial elephant in the room.Future healthcare journal · 2025Article
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
Background: We present work funded by Macmillan Cancer Support and hosted with the UK Acute Oncology Society from conversations about acute cancer care with oncologists, palliative care and generalist clinicians to determine how best to manage the increasing complexity of cancer patients and their management. Methods: We used a number of facilitated focus groups to draw out themes of initial management, communication differentiating between toxicity, disease progression and when and how to start conversations about the end of life. Results: There is an awareness of the significant mortality for patients needing acute cancer care. However, there is no clear responsibility to having these prognostic conversations. These include attitudes towards future care planning (FCP) in oncology, ownership and the challenges faced by non-oncologists treating more and more people living with cancer. Conclusions: There needs to be increased recognition of acute admission as a point of transition, often into end-of-life care, for people with cancer. There are significant barriers to conversations in acute cancer care, which include a lack of clear ownership in oncology pathways, and a reticence of all professionals to engage in conversations around prognosis before acute admission or at the time of acute illness. There is a need to develop standardised links between oncology and urgent care providers and for protocols within hospital to allow for access to expertise and assessment and onward sharing of information. Earlier, more transparent conversations may allow patients and families to make clearer choices about care options in the last months of life and, critically, reduce dependence on acute care.
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.