ArticleScientific reports2026
Addressing gaps in cancer cachexia care among healthcare professionals at Uganda Cancer Institute.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer cachexia, a multifactorial syndrome of weight loss, muscle wasting, anorexia, and systemic inflammation, often goes unaddressed. Healthcare professionals at Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) face substantial clinical workloads, limited resources and constrained access to guideline-based practice and limited multi-modal care, all of which adversely affect cancer cachexia recognition and management. To assess UCI professionals' knowledge levels, practice patterns, and attitudinal barriers regarding cancer-cachexia care. A longitudinal quasi-experimental pre-post study design using mixed methods was conducted among 50 healthcare professionals. Quantitative data were collected using an ASCO/ESMO/GLIM-adapted questionnaire and analyzed with McNemar's test, Chi-square tests, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (STATA-v18). In-depth interviews with 10 purposively selected participants were thematically analyzed using NVivo-v15. Participants were predominantly nurses (72%), the median age was 37 years, with 7 years of oncology experience, 64% were female. At baseline, 44% reported no prior cachexia training and assessments were largely subjective and conflated with malnutrition. Post-intervention, awareness of ASCO guidelines increased significantly to 89%, misconceptions regarding nutritional reversibility declined (p = 0.0097), and confidence in cachexia management rose by 36%. Evidence-based practices, including oral nutrition prioritization (p = 0.024), short-term corticosteroid use (p = 0.025), and anti-inflammatory therapy (p = 0.034), improved significantly. Confidence in management rose by 36% and non-assessment decreased, with modest gains in cachexia-specific assessment. Improving cachexia care in resource-limited settings requires structural integration into routine oncology practice more than individual awareness, through increased staffing, training, leadership, interdisciplinary coordination, and locally adapted guidelines.
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.