ArticleBMC medical education2026
Co-adapting the evaluation strategy for a patient-centered interprofessional training program in cancer care: a modified mixed-methods Delphi study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundCancer care requires collaboration across specialties, making interprofessional education essential. The INTERACT-EUROPE 100 project promotes interprofessional cancer care by implementing the Inter-Specialty Cancer Training Program (ISCTP) on a larger scale across Europe. This study aimed to co-adapt a comprehensive evaluation framework to assess the impact of the ISCTP, with the broader goal of informing evaluation practices in other educational programs in cancer care. A modified three-round Delphi study was conducted involving cancer care experts and patient representatives. In the first round, 61 participants responded to three open-ended questions in written form to gather their perspectives on key aspects to consider when evaluating the ISCTP. Thematic analysis of these responses yielded twelve overarching statements that were subsequently prioritized by 46 participants in the second round using a ranking task. The third and final round consisted of two cross-national online focus group discussions (n = 15), which allowed for the contextualization of these findings. ISCTP evaluation priorities were defined at various levels: assessing program satisfaction through feedback on content relevance, interactivity (e.g., collaborative exercises), and participant engagement through attendance and active participation. Additionally, emphasis was placed on evaluating both declarative knowledge acquisition and the application of procedural knowledge, as well as competence assessment using culturally sensitive rubrics. Overall, findings underscore the need to measure participant performance through satisfaction, behavioral changes, and patient-centered outcomes to successfully implement existing evaluation frameworks. Having incorporated interest-holder perspectives, these findings provide a robust and patient-centered foundation for a comprehensive ISCTP evaluation.
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.