ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2026
Cancer survivorship care among head and neck cancer patients living in rural and urban locations.
Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNational Standards for Cancer Survivorship Care (i.e., survivorship standards) were developed as policy, process, and assessment standards to guide quality of survivorship care across all cancer settings. This descriptive study uses two methods to provide a picture of the alignment of care for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) with survivorship standards in an academic health care system in Southeast Texas.
methodsOne method consisted of an anonymous survey of 15 HNC providers' perceptions of alignment of survivorship standards with HNC. A modified kappa score for each standard was computed as proportion of participants' agreement that the standard was relevant to the institutions' HNC care. Scores ranged from 1 (highly relevant) to 0 (not relevant). The second method analyzed encounters over a 1-year period after diagnosis using electronic health record (EHR) data of 438 patients with HNC from the same institution. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and generalized linear models.
resultsModified kappa scores showed the institution's processes to provide HNC survivorship services were more aligned with survivorship standards (process = 0.60) than institutional policies or assessments (policies = 0.28; assessments = 0.29). EHR data analysis found HNC survivorship services consisted of nearly ¼ of encounters but concentrated in specialist and rehabilitation survivorship care.
conclusionThe study's cross-cutting themes include need for policies and assessments that increase EHR documentation of HNC survivorship care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The survivorship standards may be useful in developing clinical and informatics infrastructure needed to advance the quality of HNC survivorship care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42821237What 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.