Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Implementing Personalized Cancer Medicine: Insights from a Qualitative Interview Study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Implementing Personalized Cancer Medicine: Insights from a Qualitative Interview Study
Do you wish to request the book?
Implementing Personalized Cancer Medicine: Insights from a Qualitative Interview Study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Implementing Personalized Cancer Medicine: Insights from a Qualitative Interview Study
2025
Overview
Background: Personalized cancer medicine (PCM) tailors cancer treatments based on individual genetic profiles, enabling more precise and effective therapies. Despite its potential, integrating PCM into clinical practice remains challenging because of organizational and systemic barriers. This study examined the factors influencing PCM implementation at a major cancer center in Stockholm, Sweden. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 medical professionals and management staff from Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. Content analysis was used to identify key themes related to PCM implementation. This study followed the established Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines to ensure methodological rigor and transparency. Results: Informants framed PCM as both a technological innovation and a patient-centered approach. However, significant barriers to implementation were identified, including organizational inertia, fragmented funding models, and ethical challenges related to access and equity. Structural silos between academic and healthcare institutions complicate integration. Key facilitators include leadership commitment, cross-sectoral collaboration, and a supportive policy environment. Participants emphasized the need for integrated infrastructure, real-time data-sharing mechanisms, and interdisciplinary training programs to support PCM. Conclusions: Successful PCM implementation requires overcoming entrenched organizational and systemic barriers through a multi-stakeholder approach involving healthcare providers, researchers, policymakers, and patient advocates. The findings underscore the necessity of a “third-form organization” to mediate between academia and clinical care. Addressing these challenges requires adaptive governance models, evidence-based policy reforms, and sustainable funding frameworks. Future research should explore comparative contexts to enhance the scalability and generalizability of PCM integration strategies.
