ArticleBMJ open2026
Stakeholder perspectives on brain tumour care across rural-urban boundaries: a reflexive thematic analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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
objectivesTo explore stakeholder perspectives on care coordination barriers and facilitators in regionalised neuro-oncology delivery, using brain tumours as a model for examining complex care pathways serving mixed rural-urban populations.
designReflexive thematic analysis of semistructured interviews from stakeholders across the neuro-oncology care pathway was used to identify themes of care system strengths, barriers to effective service delivery and priorities for system improvement.
settingRegionalised Canadian health system serving one of Ontario's largest catchment areas, characterised by predominantly rural populations and substantial geographic distances to tertiary care.
participants36 stakeholders purposively sampled to represent diverse roles across the care pathway, including family caregivers (n=6), healthcare providers from multiple specialties and care settings (n=28) and Indigenous community advisors (n=2).
resultsThematic analysis identified seven themes organised within two broad domains: care system strengths and barriers to care continuity. Care system strengths included three themes: responsive palliative care integration, provider dedication and compassionate commitment, and intra-institutional coordination infrastructure. Barriers to care continuity included four themes: insufficient pathway standardisation across settings; inadequate educational infrastructure for patients, families and providers; absent cross-institutional coordination infrastructure and limited regional clinical trial access. Participants described relatively coordinated processes within the tertiary centre, while communication and follow-up were more fragmented at interfaces with referring hospitals and community services, with participants describing patients becoming 'lost in transitions'.
conclusionsFindings reveal how regionalised cancer systems can achieve localised coordination while experiencing fragmentation at interfaces between organisations. Participants described relatively coordinated processes within the tertiary centre, alongside more fragmented communication and follow-up across interfaces with referring hospitals and community services. These stakeholder perspectives highlight potential directions for service redesign, including standardised pathways, shared information systems and clearer cross-site accountability structures, which warrant future evaluation alongside consideration of resource allocation and local feasibility. Brain tumours, requiring rapid multidisciplinary coordination, expose these interface failures with clarity, offering transferable insights for improving integrated cancer care in regionalised health systems serving geographically dispersed populations.
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.