ArticleNEJM catalyst innovations in care delivery2025
Opportunities for Home Cancer Care: The Final Frontier.
Article in NEJM catalyst innovations in care delivery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bringing cancer care to the patient's home through telemedicine and remote care services, including remote patient monitoring, cancer treatment at home, and hospital-at-home programs, has become an increasingly appealing opportunity to optimize patient experience, access, and value. Although these forms of remote care services came to the fore during the Covid-19 pandemic as a result of operational disruptions, their current use, future directions, and successes and barriers are largely unknown. The authors partnered with the Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers to conduct a landscape analysis through structured interviews with clinical leaders who have knowledge of these technologies across the United States. The interview was divided into five main sections, with questions focused on (1) telemedicine; (2) remote patient monitoring, including laboratory testing at home and the use of electronic patient-reported outcomes and biometric devices; (3) cancer treatment at home; (4) hospital-at-home programs; and (5) the use of AI to facilitate remote care. The authors interviewed 17 clinical leaders across 15 institutions. Several pertinent themes emerged during the interviews. The authors discovered that telemedicine visits are available to oncology patients across the country but vary in scope and capacity on an institutional level. Institutions share common barriers, including technical infrastructure, state licensure requirements, concerns about reimbursement parity, and institutional culture. A few institutions have prioritized telemedicine visits based on clinical operational strategy, made institutional investments to support it, and were able to surpass some of these barriers, serving as case studies for potential solutions. Other remote care services were rarely implemented in the institutions interviewed. A few institutions have received the necessary support, funding, and infrastructure to successfully implement programs and practices related to the five care delivery interventions and have demonstrated positive outcomes. Key aspects of their success include research efforts to provide an evidence base to support the transition of these interventions to standard of care, high-level (C-suite) institutional support, and the use of third-party vendors. Although telemedicine and remote care services are recognized as appealing options to improve patient care and experience, based on input and insights from the interviewees, the optimal implementation of such care delivery solutions in the home setting will require ongoing research investment, collaborative efforts, reimbursement security, changes in the regulatory and legislative environment, and advocacy.
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.