ArticleBMC health services research2026
Using co-design to identify healthcare priorities for patients with incurable head and neck cancer.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. 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.
- Co-Designing a Prototype Education and Training Intervention for Healthcare Professionals Working in Community Laryngectomy Care: An Experience-Based Co-Design Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Multi-perspective views about healthcare experiences for those with incurable head and neck cancer: A prospective, longitudinal, qualitative study.Palliative medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with incurable head and neck cancer (HNC) face complex care pathways, significant symptom burdens and psychosocial challenges. The complexity of symptoms, disease trajectory and the centralised, but often inequitable, services frequently lead to the patients’ and caregivers’ needs for support and care not being fully met. To address this gap, this study adopts a co-design approach, where patients, caregivers, and professionals collaborate to develop solutions that address service issues, aligning with the needs and priorities of both patients and caregivers.
methodsThis qualitative exploration of co-design processes involved patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) participating in one online and two in-person multi-stakeholder co-design workshops in Sheffield, UK. Patient vignettes were developed to illustrate typical care journeys and ‘stress points’ in service interactions. These vignettes were shared with 13 participants, including patients with lived experience of head and neck cancer, family caregivers, specialist nurses, and allied HCPs, to identify areas for improvement and co-develop potential solutions using prioritisation activities, group concept mapping, and facilitated group discussions.
resultsDuring the first in-person workshop, co-design participants (co-designers) identified and prioritised critical stress points in the care pathway, including a lack of support in caregivers’ preparedness and challenges navigating healthcare systems (specifically contacting the clinical team). Using these findings, the co-designers proposed various solutions, including introducing a single point of contact (care navigator) or a printed version of a personalised ‘roadmap’ of services, instituting a multidisciplinary discharge planning process to aid transitions to home care and implementing a dedicated 24-hour helpline staffed by knowledgeable personnel (HNC specialist staff) to provide patients with information.
conclusionThe co-design workshops have developed practical, user-informed intervention solutions to address the specific navigation challenges faced by people with incurable HNC. While the interventions developed are relevant in many ways to the broader HNC care pathway, they are particularly relevant to the complex needs of this group and are now guiding the next phase of interventions for improving patient-centred services.
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.