ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Toward a better understanding of the uptake of interventions for cancer-related fatigue: the perspective of healthcare providers, patients, and partners.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWhile cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is prevalent among cancer patients posttreatment, the uptake of evidence-based interventions is low. This suggests resources are not well used, and patient needs go unaddressed. We investigated reasons for the discrepancy between the high prevalence of CRF and limited uptake of interventions, from the perspective of healthcare providers (HCPs), patients, and partners. We explored this from experiencing CRF, to needing care, seeking care, and use of care for CRF.
methodsSemi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with patients (n = 16) who completed curative cancer treatment and experienced CRF, partners (n = 11), and HCPs (n = 29).
resultsThematic analysis revealed five themes explaining the low uptake of care. Only patients who experienced (1) interference due to fatigue developed a care need. Care seeking and referral to care were hampered as it was (2) unclear which HCP is responsible for assessment and management of posttreatment fatigue, and because of (3) a lack of awareness of interventions and referral pathways, (4) unhelpful expectations regarding fatigue and interventions, and (5) practical barriers influencing the initiation and continuation of care use.
conclusionCRF posttreatment is not routinely assessed, and it is unclear for patients and HCPs which HCP is responsible for its assessment and management. Knowledge of CRF and interventions is limited, leading to uncertainty about the treatability of CRF. To improve patients' access to care, responsibilities of HCPs need to be defined, knowledge needs to be improved, and CRF assessment and management must be integrated into standard clinical practice.
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.