ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Time-Toxicity Indicators and Mitigation Strategies in Cancer Care: A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To map strategies for mitigating time toxicity in cancer care, summarize time-toxicity-related indicators, and identify implications for nursing and supportive care. Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and reported using the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The PCC framework was used to define the population, concept, and context. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to June 1, 2026. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed empirical studies involving patients with cancer or cancer survivors and reporting time-toxicity-related indicators or strategies relevant to reducing time burden in cancer care. Two reviewers independently screened records and charted data using a standardized form. Results: Fifteen studies published between 2017 and 2026 were included. Study populations covered breast, prostate, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, hepatocellular, hematologic, and mixed cancer populations. Indicators included travel distance, travel time, waiting time, total encounter time, health care contact days, days at home, hospital days, emergency department days, treatment visits, overall treatment time, and transfusion-related time burden. Four strategy domains were identified: decentralized and closer-to-home care, digital support and workflow optimization, individualized scheduling and logistical support, and optimization of treatment-related time burden. These strategies addressed time burden by reducing travel, shortening waiting or encounter time, improving logistical support, optimizing treatment pathways, or incorporating time costs into treatment decision-making. Conclusion: Time toxicity arises from treatment and from how patients access, receive, coordinate, and manage cancer care. Current evidence identifies potential mitigation directions but does not establish comparative effectiveness. Future studies should develop consistent core measures and prospectively evaluate mitigation strategies. Nursing practice, education, and policy should recognize time burden as part of patient-centred cancer care and care pathway design.
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.