ArticleHealth SA = SA Gesondheid2026
Implementing a balanced scorecard-driven performance dashboard for governance in a public oncology centre in Morocco.
Article in Health SA = SA Gesondheid, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cancer care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including Morocco, is constrained by fragmented information systems, non-standardised indicators and limited integration of clinical, financial and administrative data. These weaknesses undermine governance capacity, impair care coordination and delay evidence-informed decision-making. Aim: To co-design and implement a balanced scorecard (BSC)-based digital performance governance model in a public university oncology centre in northern Morocco. Setting: The study was conducted at a public tertiary oncology centre integrated into Morocco's National Cancer Control Programme. Methods: A qualitative participatory action research (PAR) design was used. Multidisciplinary workshops and semi-structured interviews supported the development of a BSC framework and the validation of 21 performance indicators across five perspectives: clinical results, financial sustainability, patient experience, internal processes and learning and growth. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) were integrated into a digital dashboard. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were conducted within the PAR and BSC framework. Results: Operational indicators, including treatment completion and equipment utilisation, were high (≈90%), reflecting strong technical capacity. Diagnostic delays and late-stage presentation remained frequent. Patient-centred processes were weaker: satisfaction with care coordination and supportive services was suboptimal, and coverage of psychosocial and nutritional support was limited. Learning and growth indicators showed moderate staff training and restricted access to innovation. Conclusion: The BSC-based digital model improved transparency, coordination and strategic alignment, representing a replicable and contextually adaptable governance approach for oncology services in LMICs. Contribution: This study provides a replicable framework linking clinical performance, patient experience and organisational learning.
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.