ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Mapping patient encounters to identify recruitment timepoints after brain tumour surgery: a cohort and cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to develop a comprehensive process map for patients with brain tumours to identify opportunities for quality improvement and automated data collection. Through optimising workflows, the overall goal is to improve patient recruitment to clinical trials.
designA two-stage mixed methods design, combining qualitative development of a process map with quantitative validation using electronic health records (EHR). Following this, a cross-sectional survey was conducted to assess how patients learn about clinical trials.
settingA single neurosurgery centre in the United Kingdom.
participantsThe process map was developed through stakeholder interviews with neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team members and patients (n=13). Clinical encounters were validated with EHR data from 50 patients. A cross-sectional survey presented the validated process map to 25 postoperative patients to identify the resources they used to learn about ongoing clinical trials.
interventionsPostoperative questionnaires were given to patients after brain tumour surgery, either on the ward or in follow-up clinic. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the percentage of the study cohort that was present at encounters on the process map. Key timepoints were defined if >80% of patients were present. They represent high-yield opportunities to offer information on clinical trial recruitment. The secondary outcome was the resources used by patients to learn about ongoing clinical trials.
resultsQuantitative validation of patient pathways identified 345 encounters involving 19 discrete events, including clinics, telephone follow-ups and treatments. The flow of encounters reflected the process map with 90.7% accuracy, with key timepoints identified at imaging and biopsy/surgical procedures. A cross-sectional survey conducted during outpatient neuro-oncology clinics identified that patients predominantly used self-directed internet searches (n=17, 68%) and verbal information from their neurosurgeon (n=16, 64%) to learn about clinical trials.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the effectiveness of process mapping in identifying key timepoints for automated data collection and opportunities for quality improvement for clinical trial recruitment. Integrating online and in-clinic education strategies could enhance patient awareness and participation in clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.