ArticleBMC health services research2025
Barriers and facilitators for the utilisation of psycho-oncological services in German hospitals as perceived by patients and healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study.
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. 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.
- Predictors of the use of psycho-oncological care.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Psychosocial distress in outpatients with cancer: influence of demographic and medical factors on psychosocial distress and the perceived need of psycho-oncological support.Frontiers in psychology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPsycho-oncological services (POS) are an integral and widely recommended part of comprehensive cancer care. However, their utilisation appears to fall short of the perceived need. This study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators for the uptake of POS in the context of existing clinical structures and pathways to POS.
methodsA mixed-methods study was conducted, drawing on elements of a Delphi approach, including an iterative two-round feedback process and an expert panel. The expert panel consisted of healthcare professionals in cancer care (n = 27) and cancer patients (n = 14). The first round comprised open-ended questions to explore different perspectives related to the research question. The resulting material was analysed qualitatively and grouped into themes, which were rated according to their perceived importance by the expert panel in the second survey-round (N = 27).
resultsThe expert panel identified 69 aspects influencing the uptake of POS; 81% were rated as relevant in the second round. They were grouped into structural factors at hospital level, aspects related to internal processes, and factors at patient level. Central aspects were recommendations of POS by the clinical staff, personal introduction of the psycho-oncologist, integration and acceptance of POS within the hospital organisation, information dissemination about POS to both patients and clinical staff, and the possibility of flexible access routes to POS since patients’ preferences differed. Patient-groups more difficult to reach with a POS-offer were also identified.
conclusionThe results can be used to review implemented clinical pathways to POS in diverse hospital contexts, helping to identify and improve critical aspects accordingly, and thus improve service accessibility.
trial registrationThis study was pre-registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00025105; registration date: 26-05-2021).
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.