Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40103314›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025

Outpatient Virtual Care Among People Living With and Beyond Cancer From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds in Australia: A Protocol for a Realist Evaluation.

Prince Peprah, Sagda Osman, Rebecca Mitchell, Ashfaq Chauhan, Ramya Walsan, Maryam Sina, Bronwyn Newman, Nadine El-Kabbout, Jan Mumford, Emilie Francis-Auton and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Telehealth service use in people with cancer compared to people without cancer: analysis of Patient Experience Surveys in Australia.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    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

20 authors.

Prince PeprahAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3816-2713
Sagda OsmanAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Rebecca MitchellAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Ashfaq ChauhanAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2762-510X
Ramya WalsanAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Maryam SinaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Bronwyn NewmanAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5147-7381
Nadine El-KabboutNafs Counselling, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jan MumfordCancer Voices New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Emilie Francis-AutonAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Elizabeth ManiasSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3747-0087
Virginia MumfordAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Kate ChurrucaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Michelle MoscovaHealth ANSWERS (Health in ACT and NSW Education, Research and Services), Virginia Dr, Bega, New South Wales, Australia.
Natalie TaylorFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Craig NelsonWestern Health Chronic Disease Alliance, Victoria, Western Health Melbourne, Australia.
Alexander CardenasHealth Infrastructure NSW, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
Robyn Clay-WilliamsAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Reema HarrisonAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council Partnership Scheme (Grant No. 2015544).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVirtual care is increasingly being used to deliver outpatient cancer services, yet people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds can experience inequities in accessing these services. A range of complex and context-specific factors impact the effectiveness of virtual care and equity in its use and outcomes. This study draws on the methodological principles of realist evaluation to provide contextual understanding and account of how, why and in what circumstances outpatient virtual care services work (or not) for people from CALD backgrounds accessing cancer services in Australia.

designRealist evaluation, a theory-driven approach, allows researchers to provide a nuanced understanding of how, for whom and why different interventions work (or not) under different circumstances. We propose an iterative and stakeholder-driven four-phase study design that is exploratory and sequential, following the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES II) quality standards for realist studies. Phase 1 will generate the initial program theory from a realist synthesis of theories for how virtual care interventions are implemented into routine care and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, including CALD service providers, service leaders and people with cancer and/or their carers who are from CALD backgrounds. Phase 2 will use semi-structured realist interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders and retroductive, theory-driven realist analysis to test and refine the initial program theory. Phase 3 will validate the program theory with a small purposive participant sample outside those who participated in phases 1 and 2. The final phase will coproduce theory-informed actionable recommendations and guidelines for effective virtual models of care implementation through interactive workshops with consumers, managers, service leaders and providers. DISCUSSION: Knowledge of the contexts and mechanisms that produce optimal outcomes from virtual care is essential to guide the design, adjustment and implementation of virtual care models that provide equitable care outcomes for all patients. Outputs from this realist evaluation, including the program theory and actionable recommendations and guidelines, will inform policy and practice about implementing or adjusting virtual care models and policies or procedures in Australian healthcare to make them more accessible and equitable. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The conceptualisation and design of this study were developed with healthcare consumers from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, healthcare providers and academics as part of a national project in Australia. Multicultural consumers who have lived experience of accessing cancer services contributed to the project's design as investigators and are coauthors of this protocol paper. Patients and the public are also represented as Project Steering Group members who will inform the data collection processes, development, and refinement of our program theory.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareCultural DiversityNeoplasmsTelemedicineAustraliaHumansResearch DesignAustraliaCALDcancermodels of carerealist evaluationvirtual care

Identifiers

PMID40103314
PMCPMC11919919

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.