2026 Health Observance Executive Brief
Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month 2026: Turn Awareness into an Accountable Care Route
Awareness matters when a person can move from a symptom, risk concern, or abnormal finding to qualified assessment, specialist ownership, diagnostic clarification, treatment planning, supportive care, and survivorship without becoming the coordinator of a fragmented system.
Can your organization show, with an explicit denominator and a named owner, whether every person entering an ovarian cancer concern pathway reaches an accepted next step, or a documented exception with active follow-up?
Leadership signal
Ovarian cancer awareness should expose whether the care system can recognize concern, assign ownership, and close the route.
Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month creates an opportunity to improve public understanding, but the larger executive opportunity is operational. A person may encounter primary care, urgent care, emergency services, gynecology, imaging, laboratory medicine, pathology, surgery, medical oncology, genetics, pharmacy, supportive care, palliative care, and survivorship services. Each encounter may be clinically appropriate while the whole route remains unreliable. The failure is often not a single wrong decision. It is an unowned interval, an unaccepted referral, an unavailable appointment, a result that never becomes a plan, or a burden quietly transferred to the patient and family.
Symptoms associated with ovarian cancer can overlap with common conditions, and the pathway from concern to diagnosis is not a simple public screening sequence. A focused review of symptom clusters found that the literature uses multiple symptom groupings and measurement approaches, reinforcing the need for qualified assessment rather than a universal symptom rule.20 Executives should therefore avoid turning an awareness campaign into a diagnostic promise. The safer leadership aim is to make the route visible: who receives the concern, what information is required, who accepts responsibility, how the next service acknowledges the handoff, and how the organization detects delay or loss.
That distinction matters because more messages can create more demand without increasing diagnostic capacity, gynecologic oncology access, pathology turnaround, genetic counseling, treatment navigation, or supportive care. An observance that increases attention but leaves queues, ownership, and exceptions unchanged may unintentionally widen the distance between people who can self-advocate and those who cannot. The executive task is to match communication with capacity and to measure whether entry into the route produces an accepted action.
Replace activity counts with route measures.
Campaign impressions, event attendance, web visits, brochures distributed, and referrals sent are activity measures. They cannot show whether a person obtained assessment, whether a specialist accepted the referral, whether diagnostic work was completed, whether molecular and genetic considerations reached the treatment plan, or whether symptoms and family needs received a response.
Preserve clinical authority and individual choice.
The management system can define ownership, acknowledgment, escalation, and measurement without prescribing an individual test or treatment. Qualified professionals determine clinical decisions with each patient. Leaders ensure that the necessary services, information, decision rights, privacy controls, language access, and exception processes exist.
Choose one ovarian cancer concern or follow-up pathway, map it from entry to verified closure, reconcile a real denominator, and correct at least one work-system condition that causes delay, ambiguity, or unequal access.
Evidence with transfer limits
Use the research to design a more reliable system, while keeping study design, setting, denominator, uncertainty, and applicability attached to every claim.
Trace people who missed an offer
A 2026 pilot across three integrated health systems identified large groups of living ovarian cancer patients who had no documented prior germline testing. The share varied materially by system, which makes the study useful for case-finding design but unsuitable as a universal benchmark.2
Ask patients directly
In a 77-patient cohort receiving PARP inhibitors, agreement between clinician- and patient-reported toxicities was poor across 12 symptoms, with reported kappa values from 0 to 0.15.3 The study supports a listening mechanism, not a treatment rule.
Protect the human connection
Interviews with 16 patients and 10 clinicians found interest in electronic patient-reported follow-up alongside continued specialist access. Technology concerns and feelings of abandonment were explicit barriers.19
Figure 1. Previously untested patients found in one three-system ovarian cancer Traceback pilot
A diagnostic statistic is not a population screening instruction.
A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm included 27 studies. The pooled estimates were sensitivity 0.87 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.84 to 0.90, specificity 0.84 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.81 to 0.87, and area under the curve 0.92.1 The authors also reported substantial heterogeneity, including I² of 86.48% for sensitivity and 96.41% for specificity. Menopausal subgroup estimates differed. These numbers should remain attached to study populations, thresholds, reference standards, settings, and intended use. They do not justify indiscriminate testing, self-diagnosis, a universal referral threshold, or replacement of qualified clinical judgment.
The management lesson is narrower and more useful: when diagnostic tools are part of a local pathway, leaders should know where they are used, who is qualified to interpret them, what denominator is being measured, what happens after an indeterminate or discordant result, and how the organization monitors false reassurance as well as unnecessary escalation. A high summary statistic cannot compensate for an unowned result or a patient who cannot reach the receiving service.
Delay evidence supports route visibility, not a single deadline.
A 2025 systematic review of treatment delay in endometrial and ovarian cancer included 21 studies, most retrospective, and used narrative synthesis because designs and definitions were heterogeneous.10 The reported intervals associated with outcomes varied, and the review described concerns involving survival, stage progression, anxiety, distress, and satisfaction. This evidence supports measurement of local intervals and aged exceptions. It does not establish one universal time threshold for every person, disease state, or service configuration.
Executives can act without converting heterogeneous literature into a false standard. Define the local interval from referral receipt to review, from accepted referral to completed specialist encounter, from diagnostic clarification to documented plan, and from a reported symptom to response. Publish the timestamp source, exclusions, missingness, and clinical escalation rules. Review the longest waits and the people who never reach the endpoint, not only the median among completers.
Molecular and imaging evidence increases the need for coordinated interpretation.
A 2025 meta-analysis of molecular subtypes in endometrioid and clear-cell ovarian cancers synthesized six studies with 1,133 endometrioid ovarian cancers and four studies with 377 clear-cell ovarian cancers.12 A separate 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of supradiaphragmatic lymph nodes on preoperative PET or PET/CT included five retrospective, single-center studies and 605 patients; the authors reported associations with overall survival, progression-free survival, and likelihood of complete cytoreduction, while also noting the absence of histologic confirmation for the imaging finding.11 These studies illustrate disease and diagnostic complexity. They should not be used as public screening instructions or stand-alone care rules.
For the operating system, the implication is that pathology, imaging, surgery, oncology, genetics, and data cannot function as isolated departments. The route needs documented decision rights, a shared minimum dataset, a mechanism for resolving discordance, and a way to show whether recommended information reached the multidisciplinary plan. Completeness should be measured against the locally governed pathway, not against a generic checklist detached from patient circumstances.
Patient-reported outcomes need purpose, response ownership, and a non-digital alternative.
A 2024 narrative review supporting an Australian ovarian cancer clinical quality registry identified five ovarian cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures and described the challenge of choosing a tool that is feasible, meaningful to patients, and suitable for registry implementation.15 A 2026 review of quality-of-life measurement in PARP inhibitor trials found increasing use of patient-reported outcomes but heterogeneity in tools, endpoints, and data collection beyond progression.4 These sources do not identify one universally correct instrument.
The system should begin with purpose: What decision will the information support? Who receives an alert? What response interval is clinically governed? What occurs when the person cannot or does not use the digital channel? How are language, accessibility, privacy, device access, and proxy reporting handled? What work is removed when new data collection is added? A measure that collects distress without a response route can create the appearance of patient-centeredness while leaving the patient alone with the result.
Closed-loop route
Define completion as an accepted next action or a documented exception with active ownership.
A referral sent is not a referral accepted. A result released is not a result understood. A recommendation recorded is not a service obtained. The pathway becomes reliable only when each handoff has a sending owner, a receiving owner, an acknowledgment, a due interval, an exception status, and a closure condition. This is management design, not a clinical protocol.
Figure 2. Proposed closed-loop ovarian cancer concern and care route
Give every interval a state.
Useful states include received, clinically reviewed, more information requested, accepted, scheduled, completed, patient deferred, patient declined after informed discussion, unable to contact, capacity unavailable, redirected, and escalated. The state definition should say who records it, which timestamp counts, and what evidence closes it. Free text alone is difficult to reconcile and easy to misinterpret.
Make interim responsibility explicit.
When a referral is waiting, a specimen is incomplete, a result is discordant, or a service is unavailable, the pathway should identify who retains responsibility and what escalation applies. An electronic queue cannot own a patient. A dashboard can reveal risk, but a named role must act.
Design the exception lane before the happy path is launched.
Common exceptions include identity mismatch, missing prior records, referral rejection, incomplete diagnostic work, unaffordable travel, language mismatch, inability to take time away from work or caregiving, digital exclusion, a changed phone number, insurance barriers, treatment toxicity, preference-sensitive decisions, and a person choosing to pause or decline. Each exception requires respectful documentation and a response proportionate to clinical urgency. The route should distinguish a patient preference from a system access failure. It should also distinguish an appropriate clinical reassessment from an administrative delay.
Traceback genetic testing programs illustrate this principle. The 2026 three-system pilot identified previously untested patients and used decision-analytic modeling and micro-costing, with reported program costs ranging from $41,564 to $120,327 and costs per patient tested from $1,626 to $2,632.2 A 52-person survey after reflex tumor and germline testing found similar cancer-related distress after the two result stages, a statistically different genetic-testing-related distress score, and high satisfaction in both stages; the small selected cohort and lack of a control group limit transfer.17 Those findings support a governed communication and counseling route, not a prediction for any individual. Leaders considering a similar route need a verified roster, eligibility governance, contact and consent processes, counseling capacity, test access, result disclosure, family implications, privacy rules, and a plan for people who cannot be reached or choose not to participate.
Experience, access, and equity
Do not label a pathway reliable if completion depends on health literacy, digital access, schedule flexibility, money, trust, or the ability to coordinate multiple organizations.
Qualitative evidence is particularly valuable for revealing mechanisms that administrative data may hide. A 2025 study of barriers to genetic testing among Black ovarian cancer patients included interviews with five patients, four advanced practice providers, five genetic counselors, and six physicians. Themes included diagnosis-related overwhelm, structural and socioeconomic barriers, racism, mistrust, and cultural or provider misconceptions.5 These are unweighted qualitative themes, not population prevalence estimates. They should prompt local verification with patients, families, frontline teams, and records.
A 2024 systematic review of interpersonal racism in breast and gynecologic cancer care included 13 studies involving Black women and described measures related to discrimination, trust, racism, and clinician-patient interaction across screening, treatment, and survivorship.16 The cancer types and measures varied, so the review cannot quantify a single ovarian cancer effect. It does establish that a route can appear technically available while interpersonal and structural conditions reduce its usability and trustworthiness.
Figure 3. Qualitative fishbone for a concern identified but accountable care route not closed
Digital tools can widen reach only when trust, human access, and alternatives are designed in.
A 2025 qualitative study of a chatbot for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk screening involved 17 women in rural Florida; nine adopted the tool and eight did not. The authors identified six factors involving risk perception, clinician communication, feasibility, cost and insurance, technology trust or distrust, and previous testing.6 Small qualitative samples cannot estimate adoption rates for other populations, but the findings help leaders test assumptions before scaling.
An online hereditary cancer literacy program reported 1,860 registrations, 1,329 starts, 898 successful completions, and more than 560 evaluation respondents.7 The self-selected evaluation supports feasibility and learning design, not a patient outcome claim. A retrospective single-center study of genetic testing obstacles invited 209 patients, received 73 responses, and analyzed 70; recommendation from a gynecologist, timing, education, and informational materials were associated with acceptance in that setting.8 The mixed breast and ovarian sample, response rate, and single-center design limit transfer.
Executives should test every access pathway with people who use interpreters, screen readers, shared devices, limited data plans, non-digital channels, caregiving schedules, public transportation, and financial assistance. Track offers, successful connections, accepted services, and closures by locally appropriate subgroup, while reporting missingness and protecting privacy. A disparity measure should trigger inquiry into the work system, not blame toward the patient or community.
Clinical trial access is part of information reliability.
A 2025 qualitative Australian study found themes involving barriers to awareness and participation, the burden of initiating conversations and personal research, and the need for accessible trial information among people with ovarian cancer.13 The study does not establish participation rates or a universal communication model. It does support a basic governance question: when a relevant trial may be an option, is there a dependable process for identifying the opportunity, discussing it with qualified professionals, supporting informed choice, and documenting the outcome without requiring the patient to discover the system alone?
Operating system
Align clinical authority, diagnostic services, genetics, supportive care, data, and access around the person and family.
Figure 4. Ovarian cancer accountable-care operating system
Govern the route as one system.
Name an executive sponsor and a clinically accountable lead, then assign operational ownership across intake, specialist referral, imaging, pathology, molecular and genetic services, treatment planning, pharmacy, supportive care, palliative care, survivorship, data, privacy, access, and equity. A committee without decision rights cannot resolve a failed handoff. A clinical lead without capacity information cannot protect the route.
Service agreements should specify required information, acknowledgment, scheduling responsibility, interim ownership, escalation, and closure evidence. When an external partner provides part of the route, the agreement should address data exchange, failed transmission, referral rejection, patient contact, result return, and exception review.
Connect symptom monitoring to response.
The 2025 NiQoLe real-world multicenter study included 139 patients receiving individualized-starting-dose niraparib; 86 patients, or 62%, required a treatment modification in the first three months, and patient-reported information was collected remotely.14 This treatment-specific cohort should not be generalized to every therapy. It demonstrates why the operating system must define who reviews incoming information, how clinical urgency is governed, and what happens when the patient does not respond digitally.
Patient-reported data should supplement, not replace, conversation and clinical assessment. Review workload, response completion, alert burden, language access, non-digital use, and whether information changes a documented plan. Measure missed responses as well as completed questionnaires.
Bring supportive and palliative care into the route according to need, not as an afterthought.
A national administrative-data study covering 2010 to 2020 estimated 285,487 ovarian cancer hospitalizations and found palliative consultation coded in 25,957, or 9.0%. Reported use increased from 5.1% to 11.7%. After adjustment, consultation was associated with lower 30-day non-elective readmission and lower index cost.9 The observational design and administrative coding cannot establish causality, clinical appropriateness, or a target rate. The management question is whether needs are recognized, whether patients and families receive understandable options, whether services are available, and whether a referral becomes an accepted encounter.
The route should accommodate symptom management, psychosocial support, nutrition, rehabilitation, sexual health, fertility or family concerns when relevant, financial navigation, spiritual care, caregiver support, and serious-illness communication. Not every person needs every service. Reliability means the organization can identify need, make an informed offer, connect the person to an appropriate resource, and learn from declined or unavailable services without coercion.
Executive scorecard
Measure the full route with explicit denominators, outcome states, equity views, and balancing measures.
Start with a small set of measures that can be reconciled manually. A technically elegant dashboard built on ambiguous states will create precise-looking error. For each measure, define the eligible population, numerator, exclusions, timestamp source, missing-data rule, responsible owner, review cadence, equity view, and balancing measure. Where clinical intervals are monitored, qualified governance should define escalation. Do not convert the proposed measures below into universal benchmarks.
Figure 5. Executive ovarian cancer pathway scorecard
| Route domain | Example operational definition | Denominator and exclusions | Equity or stratification view | Balancing measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accepted specialist referral | Referral acknowledged and accepted by the receiving qualified service, with a documented next action | All referrals received for the locally governed pathway; report rejected, redirected, duplicate, and incomplete separately | Language, geography, payer, age, disability, race and ethnicity where appropriate, referral source | Referral volume, rework, inappropriate routing, receiving-service capacity |
| Diagnostic interval | Time between governed pathway milestones, with aged open cases visible | All people entering the milestone; show open, closed, missing, deferred, and clinically redirected states | Same subgroups plus travel burden and site | Unnecessary testing, patient burden, urgent escalations, missing timestamps |
| Pathology and molecular completeness | Required information for the individual plan documented or a reason for noncompletion recorded | People for whom the locally governed pathway identifies the information as applicable | Site, care setting, language, payer, geography | Turnaround, specimen insufficiency, repeat work, cost, discordant results |
| Genetic-service offer and closure | Qualified offer documented, with counseling or other governed next step completed, declined, deferred, or exception-owned | Locally eligible population; never treat a decline as a failure when informed choice is documented | Race and ethnicity, language, geography, payer, age, referral channel | Wait, counseling capacity, unable-to-contact rate, privacy concerns, distress |
| Documented treatment and support plan | Plan reflects specialist assessment, patient goals, required information, and supportive needs | People reaching the locally defined planning milestone; show missing and deferred states | Site, language, payer, geography, age, disability | Time burden, care-plan changes, unplanned acute use, patient understanding |
| Patient-reported symptom response | Report reviewed and acknowledged within the clinically governed response process | All reports received plus people offered the channel who could not or did not use it | Language, digital and non-digital channel, age, disability, geography | Alert load, response workload, false reassurance, emergency use, unanswered reports |
| Supportive or palliative access | Identified need results in an informed offer and accepted connection, documented preference, or active exception | People with a locally defined need signal; report offer, acceptance, completion, decline, and unavailable service | Setting, language, payer, geography, race and ethnicity, age | Capacity, wait, duplicative contacts, burden, goal concordance |
| Aged exceptions | Open cases beyond a governed review point, grouped by cause and current owner | Every open exception, including failed contact, missing information, capacity, preference, external dependency, and data failure | Compare cause and age by appropriate subgroup | Escalation volume, override use, staff workload, privacy, avoidable rework |
Use medians only with distributions and open-case views.
A median among completed cases can improve while the longest waits and unresolved cases worsen. Pair central tendency with the 75th or 90th percentile when appropriate, a run chart over time, the number and age of open cases, missing timestamps, and the reasons cases leave the denominator. Small subgroup counts require privacy protection and cautious interpretation. A difference should trigger investigation, not a causal conclusion.
Audit the data against records and patient accounts. Verify whether an accepted referral in the system means the patient obtained an appointment. Verify whether a completed genetic-testing field means results and implications were discussed. Verify whether a supportive-care referral produced a connection. Measurement should reduce uncertainty about the route, not simply increase the volume of documentation.
90-day executive agenda
A focused 90-day pilot can turn an observance into a durable improvement in route reliability.
Select one bounded pathway, site, or population where the organization has authority to learn. The work below is a management sequence, not a clinical timeline. Continue existing clinical and safety escalation throughout the pilot.
Days 1 to 30
Define and reconcile
- Name the executive sponsor, clinical authority, operational owner, access lead, data steward, privacy lead, equity lead, and patient or family partners.
- Select one route and define entry, milestones, accepted handoff, closure, exception states, interim responsibility, and escalation.
- Trace a baseline denominator through actual records. Include open and unresolved cases.
- Review referral capacity, diagnostic services, pathology, molecular and genetic pathways, supportive services, language access, and external agreements.
- Define a small scorecard with explicit specifications and balancing measures.
Days 31 to 60
Build and rehearse
- Create the minimum acknowledgment, reconciliation, patient-contact, referral-acceptance, exception, and closure workflow.
- Prepare plain-language information and test teach-back, interpretation, accessibility, and non-digital options.
- Rehearse missing records, identity mismatch, failed transmission, unavailable appointments, referral rejection, failed contact, patient deferral, and external-service delay.
- Confirm who reviews patient-reported information, what response states mean, and how urgent concerns enter existing clinical escalation.
- Begin a limited pilot with frequent review of safety, capacity, privacy, workload, patient experience, and equity.
Days 61 to 90
Learn and decide
- Review accepted handoffs, pathway intervals, required-information completeness, patient-reported response, supportive connections, and aged exceptions.
- Compare the data with patient, family, frontline, specialist, diagnostic, genetics, access, and community accounts.
- Correct verified work-system conditions, then retest the specific handoff or exception.
- Report denominator limits, subgroup missingness, capacity, cost, workload, privacy, unintended effects, and unresolved risks.
- Decide to adapt, expand, pause, or stop, and assign sustainment review.
Figure 6. Proposed 90-day ovarian cancer route-reliability timeline
Questions for the day-90 executive review
- Can the team produce the complete denominator, including people still open, redirected, deferred, declined, or unreachable?
- Which handoff failed most often, and what verified work-system condition contributed?
- Did any subgroup experience a different completion rate, interval, exception cause, or communication burden? How complete are the subgroup data?
- Did the pilot create new workload, alert burden, privacy risk, unnecessary escalation, or access bottlenecks?
- Which improvement is stable enough to sustain, and who owns the next review?
Leave the organization with a named route owner, a reconciled denominator, an accepted-handoff definition, an exception lane, a small scorecard, and one verified reliability improvement that remains after the observance ends.
Closing perspective
Awareness becomes accountable when no person has to discover who owns the next step.
Ovarian cancer care involves uncertainty, complex decisions, and services that cross organizational boundaries. Leaders cannot remove every uncertainty, and a management article should not substitute for clinical judgment. Leaders can remove avoidable ambiguity about ownership. They can make referrals visible, require acknowledgment, protect interim responsibility, connect patient-reported information to a response, prepare exception paths, measure access and equity, and learn from the people whose route did not close.
The most credible observance message is therefore an operating commitment: when a person enters the pathway, the organization can show what happened next, who owns the current state, what exception exists, and how the route will reach an appropriate, patient-centered resolution.
Peer-reviewed evidence portfolio
References
- Zhong D, Li J, Guo G. Diagnostic accuracy of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm for ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Women & Health. 2026.
- Hassen D, et al. Cost and implementation of a genetic testing Traceback program for patients with ovarian cancer across three integrated health systems. Cancers. 2026.
- Massobrio R, Attianese D, Testi A, et al. Symptom monitoring in ovarian cancer patients treated with PARP inhibitors: agreement between physician- and patient-reported toxicities using PRO-CTCAE. Cancers. 2026;18(4):650.
- Kumari S, Umadevi K, Sundeep D. Quality of life measurement in PARP inhibitor trials of epithelial ovarian cancer: what do we know? Cancer Control. 2026;33:10732748251385617.
- Salyer C, et al. Genetic testing barriers among Black patients with ovarian cancer: a qualitative study. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2025;34(3):1-13.
- Wollney EN, et al. Factors influencing adoption of a chatbot for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk screening among rural women: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2025;25:2516.
- Rhiem K, et al. Online training to improve genetic and risk literacy in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Breast Care. 2025;20(5):305-313.
- Braun C, et al. Obstacles to genetic testing among patients with breast or ovarian cancer: a retrospective single-center study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2025;312(4):1365-1373.
- Francoeur AA, et al. Palliative care consultation and 30-day readmission among patients hospitalized with ovarian cancer: a nationwide database study. American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine. 2025;42(10):997-1004.
- Zouzoulas D, et al. The impact of treatment delay on outcomes in endometrial and ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Cancers. 2025;17(13):2076.
- Braun C, Peikert J, Brambs C. Prognostic value of supradiaphragmatic lymph nodes on preoperative PET or PET/CT in advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2025;312(6):1927-1935.
- Ye L, et al. Molecular subtypes and outcomes in endometrioid and clear-cell ovarian cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Medicine. 2025;57(1):2583543.
- Williams N, Russell H, Bradhurst B. Exploring clinical trials awareness, information access and participation amongst Australians with ovarian cancer: a qualitative study. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2025;33(3):176.
- Joly F, et al. Improving real-world evaluation of patient- and physician-reported tolerability: niraparib for recurrent ovarian cancer (NiQoLe). JNCI Cancer Spectrum. 2025;9(1).
- Lefkovits YR, et al. Incorporating patient-reported outcome measures into a clinical quality registry for ovarian cancer: considerations and challenges. BMC Health Services Research. 2024;24:778.
- Hirschey R, et al. Interpersonal racism in breast and gynecologic cancer care among Black women: a systematic review. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. 2024;11(5):3128-3138.
- McCuaig JM, Stockley TL, Ferguson SE, et al. Patient-reported outcomes associated with reflex BRCA1/2 tumor and subsequent germline panel genetic testing for high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2023;32(2):503-513.
- Dron HA, et al. Latinx experiences of genetic counseling and testing: a systematic review. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2023;32(1):166-181.
- Kennedy F, Shearsmith L, Holmes M, et al. “We do need to keep some human touch”: patient and clinician experiences of ovarian cancer follow-up and the potential for an electronic patient-reported outcome pathway. European Journal of Cancer Care. 2022;31(2):1-15.
- Mahoney DE, Pierce JD. Ovarian cancer symptom clusters and the National Institutes of Health Symptom Science Model: a focused review. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2022;26(5):533-542.