ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2026
Measuring uptake of the 2024 national standards for survivorship care: Insights from National Cancer Institute funded pilot projects.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMeasuring alignment with clinical program standards is essential for strengthening cancer survivorship care yet remains challenging due to the range and duration of services involved. The 2024 National Standards for Survivorship Care provide aspirational recommendations across three domains-policy, processes, and evaluation/assessment-for health systems developing survivorship care. Following their release, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) funded 18 supplements to understand alignment of existing services and programs with the standards and identify implementation barriers and facilitators. This report synthesizes measurement tools and approaches used in the supplements to evaluate alignment with the standards.
methodsTrained abstractors used a standardized codebook to extract project-level and measure-level characteristics, including the specific national standards assessed, data types, data collection methods, and respondent characteristics.
resultsFourteen of 18 supplement projects contributed 91 measurement tools (surveys, interview protocols, environmental scan protocols, EHR/administrative variables). Most addressed the health system process standards (82.4%), while health system policy (31.9%) and evaluation/assessment standards were less represented (15.4%). Existence or occurrence of care elements was most commonly assessed (72.5%); less commonly captured was the quality or degree to which a standard was met or how care processes occurred.
conclusionsThese findings identify opportunities to improve how alignment with national standards is measured, including the need for shared operational definitions for each standard that are applicable across cancer care delivery settings and support consistent measurement. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Stronger measurement infrastructure helps healthcare systems identify gaps in survivorship care, supporting comprehensive care for a growing cancer survivor population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42821240What 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.