ArticleJapanese journal of clinical oncology2026
Implementation strategies for cancer rehabilitation in clinical practice: a Delphi study.
Article in Japanese journal of clinical oncology, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to identify implementation strategies and determine priorities for establishing a seamless cancer rehabilitation delivery system based on consensus among multidisciplinary stakeholders.
methodsAn online modified-Delphi study was conducted. A total of 100 stakeholders (healthcare professionals, researchers, cancer survivors, and members of patient support groups) with experience in cancer rehabilitation were invited. Participants selected the top three barriers to cancer rehabilitation in the first survey. In the second survey, the implementation strategy list was provided, and the effectiveness of each strategy was rated using a 4-point Likert scale. In the third survey, participants evaluated the impact and cost of successful implementation using a 4-point scale to determine priority.
resultsValid responses were obtained from 85 participants for the first survey, 64 for the second survey, and 59 for the third survey. Consensus was reached on all 35 implementation strategies as effective measures (agreement rate for each item ranged from 70.3% to 98.4%). Fourteen items were judged very effective. The assessment of priority considering impact and cost indicated that reinforcing multidisciplinary collaboration and improving access to information were high priorities.
conclusionsThis study identified implementation strategies and priorities for cancer rehabilitation based on expert consensus. These findings demonstrate that improving inter- and intra- organizational processes is as crucial as institutional and structural enhancements. The identified strategies are expected to bridge the gap between evidence and clinical practice in Japan, contributing to the promotion of effective, continuous cancer rehabilitation delivery systems.
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.