Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39996124›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

Implementing a nurse-enabled, integrated, shared-care model involving specialists and general practitioners in early breast cancer post-treatment follow-up (EMINENT): a single-centre, open-label, phase 2, parallel-group, pilot, randomised, controlled trial.

Raymond J Chan, Fiona Crawford-Williams, Chad Yixian Han, Lee Jones, Alexandre Chan, Daniel McKavanagh, Marissa Ryan, Christine Carrington, Rebecca L Packer, Megan Crichton and 12 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

22 authors.

Raymond J ChanCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Fiona Crawford-WilliamsCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Chad Yixian HanCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Lee JonesCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Alexandre ChanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California, Irvine, USA.
Daniel McKavanaghPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Marissa RyanPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Christine CarringtonSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Rebecca L PackerSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Megan CrichtonCancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Nicolas H HartCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Emma McKinnellPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Melissa GosperPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Juanita RyanPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Bethany CroweCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Ria JosephCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Carolyn EeCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Jane LeeCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Steven M McPhailCancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Katharine CuffPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Laisa TeleniCancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Jon EmeryDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Current models of post-treatment cancer care rely heavily on hospital-based, medical specialists and do not sufficiently leverage primary care. Many breast cancer survivors face ongoing unmet needs that may benefit from a multidisciplinary, shared-care approach. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of implementing nurse-enabled, shared-follow-up care between the acute and primary care setting for early-stage breast cancer. Methods: In this single-centre, open-label, phase II, pilot, randomised, controlled trial, individuals diagnosed with breast cancer (Stage 0-III) were randomised 1:1 to either usual care or intervention, which includes a 1) Specialist Nurse Consultation to co-develop a survivorship care plan (SCP), 2) Pharmacist Consultation, 3) Case Conference with General Practitioner (GP), and 4) shared follow-up care arrangements. Feasibility and effectiveness outcome measures, including health-related quality of life (primary outcome), physical activity and nutrition, patient experience, and financial toxicity were collected at baseline, and at 3-, 6-, and 12-months, with health service utilisation data at 24-months. Bivariate and multivariable, intention-to-treat analyses were conducted. This trial is registered at Anzctr.org.au (ACTRN12619001594112). Findings: From 3rd December 2019 to 13th April 2021, 61 participants were randomised (intervention n = 29; usual care n = 32); mean age 62.9 standard deviation (SD) = 10.9 years. The intervention was feasible with 100% completion rates across all elements of the specialist nurse consultation and GP case conference. Evaluation of the 28 SCPs indicated the top three goals were exercise (n = 23), diet (n = 12) and mental well-being (n = 11). All care goals can be supported by GPs. No differences were observed between groups for health-related quality of life and the other effectiveness outcomes measures listed above at all timepoints (P > 0.05 for all). There were significantly fewer average post-treatment radiation oncology appointments per patient in the intervention group compared to the control group (0.69 versus 1.27, P = 0.013) at 24-months. Number of unplanned hospital presentations at 24-months were low across both intervention (n = 7) and control (n = 4) groups. Interpretation: Nurse-enabled, shared-care arrangements for women with early-stage breast cancer is feasible, and is as safe as specialist-led model of care. It may provide a more sustainable model of care in a longer term. GPs can meet the survivorship care needs identified breast cancer survivors. This trial can inform a large, pragmatic, hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. Funding: Metro South Health Research Support Scheme Project Grant.

Indexed as

Breast cancerModels of careNurse-ledQuality of lifeShared-careSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID39996124
PMCPMC11848094

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.