People affected by lung cancer and the clinicians treating them say that useful quality-of-care feedback should present accurate, actionable and engaging information across several areas of care. In a qualitative focus-group study involving 39 participants—21 consumers or carers and 18 clinicians—participants advocated including measures of timeliness alongside information about diagnostic testing, treatment and multidisciplinary team meeting review. The study examined how lung cancer quality-of-care data should be presented, what content it should contain and how feedback should be delivered.
Researchers used convenience and snowball recruitment, identifying potential participants through an earlier research project, professional networks and social media. Virtual and in-person focus groups took place between November and December 2024, with discussions audio-recorded and evaluated using framework analysis. Timeliness was a central concern among both participant groups.
Consumers, carers and clinicians supported measuring indicators that show how promptly care is delivered, although they regarded established timeliness expectations as “aspirational.” Their comments indicated that timeliness should form part of a broader assessment of care quality rather than stand alone as the only reported measure. Participants also valued information about other care domains. They called for feedback on diagnostic testing, treatment and multidisciplinary team meeting review so that recipients could gain a more complete understanding of lung cancer care.
The focus groups identified these subjects as important components of feedback, but they did not test particular dashboard designs or compare reporting systems. Data accuracy was described as critically important. Participants also wanted feedback to be actionable and engaging, suggesting that the content and delivery of audit results should meet the needs of the people expected to use them.
Their recommendations support an approach combining several care domains with delivery methods capable of encouraging engagement among both consumer and clinician audiences. Participants raised the potential for audit and feedback interventions to expose inequities in health systems and cancer care. They viewed organizational information—particularly case volume, infrastructure and staffing—as useful for contextualizing results.
Such information can help recipients interpret the organizational setting in which a service operates, while the focus-group findings do not establish how any particular indicator or reporting format would affect care. Public reporting drew a qualified response. Participants acknowledged the hypothetical possibility that making lung cancer quality-of-care information public could have a positive impact, while also identifying possible concerns.
Because the research collected views through focus groups rather than evaluating a reporting intervention, it cannot establish whether public reporting improves care, changes clinician behavior or influences consumer decisions. Overall, the participants recommended comprehensive, customized and interactive approaches to lung cancer quality-of-care feedback. The study provides a qualitative account of priorities expressed by 21 consumers or carers and 18 clinicians, rather than evidence that a specific intervention is effective.
Its convenience and snowball recruitment and relatively small participant groups also mean that the views may not represent everyone affected by lung cancer or involved in its treatment.
Subject of Research: Consumer, carer and clinician preferences for presenting lung cancer quality-of-care data
Article Title: Closing the feedback loop: understanding consumer, carer and clinician perspectives on the presentation of lung cancer quality of care data – a focus group study
Article References: Nash, J., Harrison, N. J., Bolton, A., Dodd, R. H., & Brims, F. (2026). Closing the feedback loop: understanding consumer, carer and clinician perspectives on the presentation of lung cancer quality of care data – a focus group study. BMC Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15735-0
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-026-15735-0
Keywords: lung cancer, quality of care, audit and feedback, focus groups, patient perspectives, clinician perspectives, care timeliness, organizational context, public reporting, health equity, Closing, feedback
News Source: Nathaniel Bowman. (October 20, 2026). Focus groups identify lung cancer care feedback priorities. Scienmag.
