Evidence mapPaperPMID 41937460Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026

Co-Designing Lung Cancer Rehabilitation Services for People Treated With Immunotherapy.

Lara Edbrooke, Elizabeth Pearson, Catherine L Granger, Linda Denehy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Lara EdbrookeDepartment of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4149-5578
Elizabeth PearsonCentre for Health Services Research in Cancer, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Catherine L GrangerDepartment of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6169-370X
Linda DenehyDepartment of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

Victorian Cancer Agency ECRF21003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmunotherapy has rapidly become part of lung cancer care, however the ability of people to participate in rehabilitation in conjunction with immunotherapy remains largely unknown. The aims of this study were to (a) understand stakeholder perspectives of lung cancer immunotherapy treatment and (b) co-design a rehabilitation programme for people with lung cancer during and following immunotherapy.

methodsExperience-based co-design, involving three distinct online phases: (1) patient, carer and healthcare professional interviews to understand immunotherapy and rehabilitation experiences; (2) separate workshops for healthcare professionals and patients/carers, to identify priority areas for future rehabilitation programme design; and (3) combined workshops to refine the draft programme. Transcripts were analysed by two researchers, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

resultsSeventeen stakeholders were involved in the interviews and/or workshops: seven patients, one carer and nine exercise healthcare professionals. Key themes included: immunotherapy side effects varied but were generally more tolerable than chemotherapy; rehabilitation information was lacking, and access varied; healthcare professional training in immunotherapy was limited. Rehabilitation enablers included supervision and monitoring from healthcare professionals with expertise in cancer; routine rehabilitation discussion with oncologists and nurses; dedicated funding. Lack of education about symptom control when exercising was a barrier for patients. Essential rehabilitation elements included individualised programmes, group-based, flexibility for centre- or home-based programmes. Programme components included education, aerobic and strength exercise and screening for nutrition and psychology needs.

conclusionsThis research has furthered understanding of the lung cancer immunotherapy treatment journey and identified key design requirements of a rehabilitation programme. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient advocates contributed to this study as members of the project steering committee. Their contributions for this study included reviewing and providing feedback on the proposed study design and the interview and workshop topic and question guides. Patient, carer and healthcare professionals co-designed the rehabilitation programme through individual interviews and a series of small-group workshops.

Indexed as

ImmunotherapyLung NeoplasmsAgedCaregiversFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle Agedco‐designimmunotherapylung cancerrehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID41937460
PMCPMC13052158

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.