ArticleBMC health services research2025
Patient experiences with collaborative practices between primary and specialized care in Norwegian cancer pathways: a qualitative 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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreased complexity and specialization of cancer care and treatments are posing significant challenges for patients navigating different levels and professions in the healthcare system. This shift necessitates coordinated care and collaboration across various healthcare providers. The study explores patient experiences with collaborative practices in clinical cancer pathways (CCPs) and examine their implications for a new initiative in Norwegian cancer care known as Cancer pathway - Home (CPH), which seeks to integrate primary care and core palliative care principles into clinical cancer pathways.
methodsA qualitative, descriptive design was employed, utilizing semi-structured interviews with 14 patients with cancer who participated in clinical cancer pathways. Our informants were recruited through healthcare professionals and local cancer associations. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis to identify themes and ideal types related to patient perspectives on collaborative practices.
findingsParticipants articulated a necessity for collaboration that addressed both the disease and the patient with the disease. Some participants felt like “packages” in a fragmented system, while others experienced more holistic, patient-centered care, particularly in rehabilitation settings. We propose a typology of four collaborative practices in Norwegian cancer pathways derived from the patient-perspective: ‘fragmented collaboration’, ‘complementary contributions’, ‘team-based collaboration’, and ‘co-navigated, patient-centered collaboration’.
conclusionOur patient-derived typology, ranging from ‘fragmented collaboration’ to ‘co-navigated, patient-centered collaboration,’ reveals a clear requirement for more integrated and holistic approaches to cancer care across the continuum of cancer pathways. Patients consistently emphasized the importance of collaboration that addressed both their clinical and psychosocial needs. The Cancer pathway – Home (CPH) initiative aligns with more patient-centered models and shows promise to enhance patient experiences by promoting structured collaboration, improving equity, and coordinating medical and psychosocial support. Addressing persistent challenges in collaboration across primary and specialist care is essential to overcoming fragmentation and realizing the full potential of integrated cancer care.
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.