ArticleBMJ open2025
Defining 'liaison haematology' in the UK: a modified Delphi study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Liaison haematology in the United Kingdom: Workforce perspectives of workload and labour demand.British journal of haematology · 2026Article
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
objectiveThe aim of this study was to generate a consensus definition for the work informally referred to as 'liaison haematology', by UK health professionals within haematology, including a list of tasks and routes by which requests are received. The objective was to help inform current workloads and future job plans.
designA modified Delphi study using focus groups sought to reach consensus on a definition and scope of work for 'liaison haematology'. SETTING AND
participantsAn expert panel of 20 healthcare professionals from a range of backgrounds within UK practice. Participants attended one of two focus groups before responding to two rounds of anonymous questionnaires.
resultsParticipants reached consensus (>75%) on a range of users, routes and activities that should be considered liaison haematology. Advice and guidance to other healthcare professionals was broadly considered to be liaison haematology. Advice directly delivered to patients did not reach consensus for inclusion. A definition for 'liaison haematology' was agreed by 87% of respondents after two iterative questionnaire rounds.
conclusionThis study provides a first definition for 'liaison haematology' as well as new insights into the activities that make up this work. There is a paucity of previous literature on this topic, and it is hoped that establishing terms of reference in this way informs workforce planning associated with hidden labour and prompts further study. Further work is needed to explore liaison haematology in supporting healthcare teams as well as the increasing demands it places on haematology services. This study begins this process which will build a better understanding of how haematology and healthcare systems operate.
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.