ArticleCancer management and research2026
Oncologists' Perspectives on Oncology Stewardship: A Focus Group Exploration in a Statewide Quality Improvement Consortium.
Article in Cancer management and research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple resource utilization challenges impact hematology-oncology practices including the expanding number of novel cancer-directed therapies, increasing costs of care, and imbalances in access to care. Oncology stewardship is a comprehensive approach to addressing these challenges while focusing on improving patient outcomes, enhancing quality of life, and optimizing resource utilization. Objective: The purpose of this project was to explore oncologists' perceptions of oncology stewardship and a potential statewide oncology stewardship program through the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium (MOQC). Methods: We conducted two structured focus groups with hematology-oncology physicians to elicit perspectives on goals and principles behind oncology stewardship, behaviors surrounding the implementation of novel therapies in the face of rising healthcare costs, and operationalization and barriers of an oncology stewardship program. Members of both focus groups then gathered for a final member checking session where findings were comprehensively presented and reviewed. Results: Collectively, 13 physician participants (n=8 first session, n=5 second session) represented 5 of the 6 MOQC regions in the sessions. Physicians practiced in both hematology (n=4) and medical oncology (n=10). Four participants were members of small practices (1-5 physicians), 1 was from a medium practice (6-14 physicians), and 8 were from large practices (15 or more physicians). Participants endorsed the tenets of stewardship as presented. Cognitive dissonance was also observed between their stated preference for rigorous trial evidence for drug approvals, and their incorporation of new approvals in the clinical scenarios presented. The large influence of national guidelines for selecting new therapies was emphasized in this context. Oncology stewardship has the potential to clarify the value and sequence of therapies at individual and societal levels. Participants indicated interest in resources to evaluate data for new approvals in a standardized fashion in the context of other available therapies. Conclusion: Participants endorsed stewardship principles, emphasized reliance on national guidelines for selecting novel therapies, and supported a program for consistent, high-quality care through evidence-based resources to reduce treatment variability across the state.
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.