ArticlePloS one2026
Perceptions of cancer survivors and healthcare professionals on adequate supportive care after treatment of cancer: An in-depth qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 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
objectiveFollowing treatment, cancer survivors often struggle to resume their life in several life domains. Although supportive care is increasingly available and can assist survivors in improving their quality of life, it often falls short in meeting the needs of the diverse and growing group of cancer survivors. Understanding the perceptions of key stakeholders is crucial for improving supportive care. This study aims to explore the perceptions of cancer survivors and healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding the provision of adequate supportive care after treatment.
methodsWe conducted 22 interviews with cancer survivors, varying in (time since) diagnosis, sex and age. Additionally, four focus groups were conducted with 25 HCPs, including medical specialists, general practitioners, psychologists, occupational physicians and informal caregivers. Interviews and focus groups were conducted using pre-defined topic guides, were audio-taped, and transcribed verbatim. A thematic content analysis was performed, consisting of several coding phases.
resultsCancer survivors emphasized the importance of a person-centered approach, with supportive care tailored to individual values and needs. They valued accessible supportive care extending beyond medical needs, including work-related support and peer support. HCPs similarly stressed the importance of person-centered supportive care, and promoting cancer survivors' empowerment. They also highlighted limited awareness of supportive care options among HCPs, the need for clear role division, multidisciplinary collaboration, integration into clinical care, and an overview of supportive care referral options.
conclusionWhile both cancer survivors and HCPs emphasized the importance of comprehensive, person-centered supportive care, its implementation in clinical practice remains challenging. Key requirements, such as greater awareness of the importance of supportive care among HCPs, knowledge of reliable referral options, and interdisciplinary collaboration, are often unmet. Efforts should focus on improving HCPs' awareness and integrating supportive care into clinical practice. The findings of this study informed the development of the online tool 'Back on Track with Cancer'. This tool supports the identification of supportive care needs, provides personalized supportive care options, and facilitates shared decision making with HCPs.
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.