Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40597217›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

Implementation of a virtual multi-disciplinary model of care for people affected by cancer: a qualitative evaluation.

Hannah Beks, Marley J Binder, Suzanne Clayden, Justin Ludowyk, David Campbell, Jessica Freeman, Ian M Collins, Craig Underhill, Mark Buzza, Michelle Barrett and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Hannah BeksInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Deakin University, Warrnambool, VIC, Australia. hannah.beks@deakin.edu.au.
Marley J BinderDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Warrnambool, VIC, Australia.
Suzanne ClaydenInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Deakin University, Warrnambool, VIC, Australia.
Justin LudowykBarwon Health, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
David CampbellBarwon Health, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Jessica FreemanVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Ian M CollinsVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Craig UnderhillVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Mark BuzzaVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Michelle BarrettVictorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Wasek FaisalDepartment of Medical Oncology, Grampians Health, Ballarat, VIC, Australia.
Dayna SwiatekFaculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia.
Anna UgaldeInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo undertake a qualitative evaluation of the implementation of the Penile and Testicular cancer multidisciplinary meeting (PEN-TEST MDM) model pilot including the acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, and requirements for sustaining the model from the perspectives of key informants. DESIGN, SETTING,

participantsA qualitative evaluation of the PEN-TEST MDM model six-month implementation pilot at Barwon Health (Victoria, Australia) (January to July 2024) was undertaken from July to September 2024. Qualitative data was obtained from semi-structured interviews undertaken with key informants, including working group members and end-users (referring and attending clinicians). Data was analysed abductively and reported, guided by Proctor’s implementation outcomes framework.

main outcome measuresKey themes pertaining to implementation outcomes based on qualitative analysis.

resultsThirteen key informants were interviewed. Three key concepts were developed: (1) value for the clinician workforce: acceptability and adoption, (2) optimising patient care: appropriateness and feasibility, and (3) considerations for sustainability and scalability.

conclusionsThe PEN-TEST MDM model is a promising approach for reviewing patient cases with penile or testicular cancer. Findings support the importance of ongoing stakeholder engagement to shape the next iteration, and further investment to refine, sustain, and scale the model. Subject to this, scoping opportunities for scaling to other less common or rare cancers is warranted. The MDM model established has potential to be transformative in addressing inequitable access to specialist cancer care.

Indexed as

Patient Care TeamPenile NeoplasmsTesticular NeoplasmsHumansInterviews as TopicMalePilot ProjectsQualitative ResearchVictoriaAustraliaDelivery of health carePenile neoplasmsProgram evaluationRare and less common cancerTesticular neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID40597217
PMCPMC12211641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.