ArticleThe oncologist2025
An interdisciplinary challenge: responsibilities in German cancer-related fatigue management from the professional and patient perspective.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fatigue: assess and address it.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Patient Activation, Patient-Physician Communication Quality, and Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Longitudinal Study of Cancer Survivors.Psycho-oncology · 2026Observational
- Recommendations for cancer related fatigue in post-treatment survivorship care: a cross-sectional analysis of guidelines.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Review
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
Abstract
objectivesDue to its complexity, the management of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is best based on an interdisciplinary care approach. Thus, we examined the preferred and the actual distribution of responsibilities from the perspectives of healthcare professionals and patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn online survey was conducted among physicians (N = 148), nurses (N = 184), and psycho-oncologists (N = 144) in Germany. The participants evaluated a series of statements and selected the professional disciplines that they deemed most responsible for specific tasks in CRF management. Data were complemented with the patient perspective. Experiences of cancer patients (N = 1,179) were assessed by questionnaires. Data from the healthcare professional and patient perspective were analyzed descriptively. For comparisons between professional groups, Kruskal-Wallis H tests and subsequent Dunn-Bonferroni tests were used.
resultsHealthcare professionals and patients agreed on a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration on CRF. Professionals valued the necessity of addressing CRF and educating patients, which was not mirrored in patient experiences. Physicians in aftercare and rehabilitation were overall perceived as main actors in CRF management. Nurses and psycho-oncologists frequently considered their own discipline as responsible for most of the tasks.
conclusionIt is necessary not only to define task-related responsibilities in standardized operating procedures but to foster interprofessional collaboration in the management of CRF.
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.