ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Designing for delivery: a Delphi study of feasibility-informed implementation strategies for a fear of cancer recurrence clinical pathway.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is pervasive among cancer survivors, yet evidence-based care is rarely implemented. Clinical pathways offer a structured approach to translating evidence into practice. This study identified key implementation barriers, enablers, and strategies for feasibly integrating an FCR clinical pathway comprising screening, assessment, and triage to stepped care into practice.
methodsA three-round Delphi study was conducted with Australian health professionals and FCR researchers. Participants rated and provided qualitative feedback on the feasibility of FCR clinical pathway elements. Qualitative responses were content analysed using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Recommended strategies were mapped using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy.
resultsEighty-nine participants completed Round 1, 69 Round 2, and 73 Round 3. Feasibility ratings varied across pathway elements (49-90%). Stepped care elements were widely endorsed as feasible (71-83% agreement), while resource-intensive recommendations (e.g., training all staff for screening) were perceived as least feasible. Key implementation enablers included Adaptability, Access to Knowledge and Information, and strong Innovation Recipient Need. Major barriers were Available Resources, Work Infrastructure and limited Innovation Deliverer Opportunity. Recommended strategies included tailoring delivery to local contexts and patient needs supported by modular training and local champions.
conclusionImplementing the FCR clinical pathway requires pragmatic adaptation and system-level support. Prioritising high-impact elements, providing training, integration into existing workflows, and shared decision-making to meet patient needs are critical. Future research should evaluate these strategies using hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs to ensure sustainable implementation and improved patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42853432What 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.