ArticleCancer medicine2026
A Novel Simulation Framework for Evaluating and Optimizing Oncology Outreach Policies in a Regional Cancer System.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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
Abstract
backgroundOncology outreach is a common strategy for addressing cancer workforce shortages, where traveling oncologists commute across healthcare settings to extend specialized care. However, methods for evaluating and optimizing outreach strategies are limited.
methodsWe developed a simulation framework for evaluating and optimizing potential outreach strategies and applied it to two test cases within Dartmouth Health's hub-and-spoke cancer system. Our approach involved sampling incident patients and visit capacity across oncologist/site pairs, assigning patients to oncologist/site pairs, and estimating the total patient travel time incurred across two groups: (1) where a portion of patient visits is shifted from the hub facility to a satellite, and (2) where the original distribution of patient visits is retained. After 5000 simulations, the mean difference in patient travel time among groups was computed to estimate patient travel time savings. We identified the optimal number of new patient visits to reallocate from the hub to satellite that maximized patient travel time savings.
resultsWe identified satellites in St. Johnsbury, VT and Manchester, NH as candidates for increased medical and radiation oncology outreach, respectively. At St. Johnsbury, we found that reallocating 45% of new medical oncology visits resulted in 140 (95% CI: 97-174) total hours saved. For patients whose care was shifted, this corresponded to an average of 1.07 (95% CI: 0.75-1.34) hours saved per visit. At Manchester, we found that reallocating 50% of new radiation oncology visits resulted in 55 (95% CI: 34-71) total hours saved. For patients whose care was shifted, this corresponded to an average of 1.13 (95% CI: 0.70-1.44) hours saved per visit.
conclusionSimulations offer a valuable means to assess the effectiveness and uncertainty of potential outreach strategies. Such approaches are well positioned to provide administrative decision support for health systems and can be leveraged to inform directional investments in outreach policies.
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.