Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33494349›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021

An Implementation Process Evaluation Based on an Integrated Psychosocial Support Program of Colorectal Cancer Couples in China: A Pilot Study.

Jieyu Li, Xingjuan Luo, Qiuping Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jieyu LiWuxi School of Medicine, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214000, China.
Xingjuan LuoWuxi School of Medicine, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214000, China.
Qiuping LiWuxi School of Medicine, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214000, China.
Jiangnan University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81773297
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies have shown that the qualitative process assessment of cancer couple-based psychosocial interventions is often ignored. This article aims to evaluate the implementation process of an integrated psychosocial program developed for colorectal cancer couples. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with eight colorectal cancer couple participants and two intervention facilitators. Normalization Process Theory was used to guide the data collection and analysis. Data analysis was conducted using a directed content analysis approach within a framework approach. Participants had a good understanding of the program significance. For most participants, the intervention duration was appropriate, and was well integrated into daily life. A lack of understanding of psychological nursing, and a lack of confidence in the use of online platforms and other personal factors, inhibited participants' experience of participating in the intervention. The facilitator's challenge in the implementation process was being flexible in dealing with situations occurring outside of the framework plan. Face-to-face and online psychological interventions require more flexibility, and participant cognition of psychosocial care was the key to the successful implementation of the intervention. Future research should consider raising participants' awareness of psychological care to better integrate this type of intervention into participants' daily lives and routine care.

Indexed as

cancercancer couplenormalization process theoryprocess evaluationpsychosocial interventionqualitative

Identifiers

PMID33494349
PMCPMC7912170
OpenAlexW3121348721

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.