% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Wagner:303213,
      author       = {A. S. Wagner and M. Milzer$^*$ and K. Steindorf$^*$ and S.
                      Kiermeier and T. D. Nguyen$^*$ and M. E. Schmidt$^*$ and I.
                      Maatouk},
      title        = {{A}n {I}nterdisciplinary {C}hallenge: {R}esponsibilities in
                      {G}erman {C}ancer-related {F}atigue {M}anagement from the
                      {P}rofessional and {P}atient {P}erspective.},
      journal      = {The oncologist},
      volume       = {nn},
      issn         = {1083-7159},
      address      = {Oxford},
      publisher    = {Oxford University Press},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2025-01564},
      pages        = {nn},
      year         = {2025},
      note         = {epub},
      abstract     = {Due to its complexity, the management of cancer-related
                      fatigue (CRF) is best based on an inter-disciplinary care
                      approach. Thus, we examined the preferred and the actual
                      distribution of responsibilities from the perspectives of
                      healthcare professionals and patients.An online survey was
                      conducted among physicians (N =148), nurses (N =184), and
                      psycho-oncologists (N =144) in Germany. The participants
                      evaluated a series of statements and selected the
                      professional disciplines that they deemed most responsible
                      for specific tasks in CRF management. Data were complemented
                      with the patient perspective. Experiences of cancer patients
                      (N =1,179) were assessed by questionnaires. Data from the
                      healthcare professional and patient perspective were
                      analyzed descriptively. For comparisons between professional
                      groups, Kruskal-Wallis H tests and subsequent
                      Dunn-Bonferroni tests were used.Healthcare professionals and
                      patients agreed on a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration
                      on CRF. Professionals valued the necessity of addressing CRF
                      and educating patients, which was not mirrored in patient
                      experiences. Physicians in aftercare and rehabilitation were
                      overall perceived as main actors in CRF management. Nurses
                      and psycho-oncologists frequently considered their own
                      discipline as responsible in most of the tasks.It is
                      necessary not only to define task-related responsibilities
                      in standardized operating procedures, but to foster
                      interprofessional collaboration in the management of CRF.},
      keywords     = {Cancer-related fatigue (Other) / Interdisciplinarity
                      (Other) / Interprofessional collaboration (Other) /
                      Supportive care (Other)},
      cin          = {C110},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C110-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:40720231},
      doi          = {10.1093/oncolo/oyaf233},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/303213},
}