Cited by 15Health Policy Implementation ScienceNursing care and researchHealth Sciences Research and Education

Developing a national implementation strategy to accelerate uptake of evidence‐based family caregiver support in U.S. cancer centers

Open access
Odom, J. Nicholas, Young, Heather M., Sterba, Katherine, Sannes, Timothy S., Reinhard, Susan, Nightingale, Chandylen L., Meier, Diane, Gray, Tamryn F. +8 more·2024·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Characterize key factors and training needs of U.S. cancer centers in implementing family caregiver support services. METHODS: Sequential explanatory mixed methods design consisting of: (1) a national survey of clinicians and administrators from Commission-on-Cancer-accredited cancer centers (N = 238) on factors and training needed for establishing new caregiver programs and (2) qualitative interviews with a subsample of survey respondents (N = 30) to elicit feedback on survey findings and the outline of an implementation strategy to facilitate implementation of evidence-based family caregiver support (the Caregiver Support Accelerator). Survey data was tabulated using descriptive statistics and transcribed interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Top factors for developing new caregiver programs were that the program be: consistent with the cancer center's mission and strategic plan (87%), supported by clinic leadership (86.5%) and providers and staff (85.7%), and low cost or cost effective (84.9%). Top training needs were how to: train staff to implement programs (72.3%), obtain program materials (63.0%), and evaluate program outcomes (62.6%). Only 3.8% reported that no training was needed. Qualitative interviews yielded four main themes: (1) gaining leadership, clinician, and staff buy-in and support is essential; (2) cost and clinician burden are major factors to program implementation; (3) training should help with adapting and marketing programs to local context and culture; and (4) the Accelerator strategy is comprehensive and would benefit from key organizational partnerships and policy standards. CONCLUSION: Findings will be used to inform and refine the Accelerator implementation strategy to facilitate the adoption and growth of evidence-based cancer caregiver support in U.S. cancer centers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.6221

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Although over 100 clinical trials showed positive outcomes for cancer caregivers, fewer than 12% of U.S. cancer centers had integrated these programs into routine care.

    “Odom et al. [5,6] reported that although over 100 clinical trials showed positive outcomes for cancer caregivers, fewer than 12% of U.S. cancer centers had integrated these programs into routine care.”

    From Home care comparison (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Background reports over 100 published trials and says systematic reviews found positive outcomes for caregivers. It also reports that, among 238 surveyed cancer centers, 8% had a caregiver program developed from published findings and 12% chose services because evidence supported their effectiveness. Neither figure directly measures whether programs were integrated into routine care across U.S. cancer centers. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [7]National Academies of Sciences E, and Medicine,. Family Caregiving for People with Cancer and Other Serious Illnesses: Proceedings of a Workshop. 2022. 36469654
  2. [30]National Academy of Medicine. Developing and Sustaining an Effective and Resilient Oncology Careforce: Proceedings of a Workshop. 2019. 31577398
  3. [31]National Academy of Medicine. Taking Action Against Clinician Burnout: A Systems Approach to Professional Well-Being. 2019. 31940160

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Odom, J. N., Young, H. M., Sterba, K., Sannes, T. S., Reinhard, S., Nightingale, C. L., Meier, D., Gray, T. F., Ferrell, B., Fernandez, M. E., Donovan, H., Curry, K., Currie, E. R., Bryant, T., Bakitas, M. A., & Applebaum, A. J.
Affiliations
  • School of Nursing University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Birmingham Alabama USA
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • UMass Memorial Medical Center (US)
  • AARP (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • City Of Hope National Medical Center (US)
  • Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health Houston Texas USA
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Viva Health, Inc. Birmingham Alabama USA
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-09-25
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
e6221-e6221
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W4387002035
Cited by
15
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5
FWCI
5.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Commons-TMC (Texas Medical Center) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
family caregiver support, cancer centers, implementation strategies, evidence-based care, staff training needs, organizational leadership, program costs, clinician burden, program adaptation, organizational partnerships, Commission on Cancer accreditation
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care Facilities, Health Services, Humans, Neoplasms, Caregivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review