ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
A cross-sectional global policy analysis of the human gap in 156 national cancer strategy plans.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: National Cancer Strategies (NCS), including National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) and Non-Communicable Disease Plans (NCDPs), shape priorities for cancer systems. Yet, little is known about whether they address human-centred care, including psychosocial support, equity, financial protection, and palliative care. We aimed to (1) assess the extent to which NCS include human-centred care themes relevant to sociocultural factors, systems of care, medical education, economic protection, mental health, and palliative care, and (2) compare inclusion across lower- and higher-income settings. Methods: The International Cancer Control Partnership, an initiative developed under the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), maintains a database of NCS to facilitate cancer planning and policy development worldwide. Using the 2023 UICC global review questionnaire dataset, this secondary analysis examined 20 questionnaire items across 98 NCCPs and 58 NCDPs from 156 countries. Items were grouped into six themes relevant to human-centred care and analyzed by country income level. Findings: Only 12% of NCCPs identified people living with cancer as stakeholders. Most countries included strategies addressing palliative care beyond pain management (84%), and 72% included strategies to support families or caregivers of cancer patients. In contrast, few countries addressed social determinants of health (28%), cancer-related inequities (28%), protection against catastrophic expenditure (14%), or referenced essential medicines for psychological distress (3%). Human-centred care themes were less frequently addressed in lower-income settings compared with higher-income settings (32% vs. 44%). Interpretation: Themes of human-centred care are infrequently included in NCS, particularly in lower-income countries. Global attention to these themes is needed to advance more equitable, human-centred cancer care worldwide. Funding: None.
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.