ArticleHealth research policy and systems2026
International multi-stakeholder collaboration to support implementation of cancer care efficiency metrics: a qualitative study to develop the All.Can Action Guide.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer care efficiency contributes to overall healthcare systems performance. However, many healthcare systems experience challenges in measuring it effectively. All.Can, a multi-stakeholder organization working to improve cancer care efficiency, has identified eight cancer metrics as a starting point for standardizing efficiency measurement, focussing on timeliness of care, coordination of care and patient-centredness. This study aims to identify barriers and enablers to implementing these metrics globally and to describe the co-development of a guide to support stakeholders in embedding these metrics into healthcare workflows.
methodsThis qualitative study used a co-development approach in collaboration with the All.Can community. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify barriers, enablers and good practices in implementing cancer care efficiency metrics. Data were analysed using a combination of deductive and inductive coding, guided in part by the Implementation in Context (ICON) framework. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to explore the perceived actionability of contextual factors, which informed the development of an Action Guide grounded in health systems research principles. The guide was reviewed by potential end-users and launched in September 2024.
resultsA total of 40 informants from 21 countries participated in semi-structured interviews. Regulatory influences were most frequently cited as relevant factors for implementing timeliness-of-care metrics. Barriers included fragmented or missing regulations on cancer data collection and limited database interoperability, whilst enablers involved national strategies and standardized care pathways. For coordination-of-care metrics, regulatory issues were again central, notably the lack of regulation defining roles such as oncology nurses and care coordinators. Political influences emerged prominently for patient-reported metrics, including lack of funding and absence of systematic data collection strategies. Advocacy was often seen as a key enabler. These informed the development of an Action Guide, intended to support the implementation of cancer care metrics.
conclusionsThis study identified contextual barriers and enablers for implementing cancer efficiency metrics and described the co-development of the All.Can Action Guide as a practical tool for policymakers, care providers and advocates. Through mapping priority areas for action, this study may strengthen data-driven decision-making, enhance timeliness and coordination of care, and ultimately improve patient outcomes and experiences worldwide.
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.