SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2009
Patients' and healthcare professionals' views of cancer follow-up: systematic review.
Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
63 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 155 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary care physicians' knowledge and confidence in providing cancer survivorship care: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024Pooled it
- A concept analysis of transitional care for people with cancer.Nursing open · 2024Pooled it
- Oncological surgery follow-up and quality of life: meta-analysis.The British journal of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness: a qualitative systematic review and evidence synthesis.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2019Pooled it
- How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018Pooled it
- Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009Pooled it
- Clinicians' Views of Patient-initiated Follow-up in Head and Neck Cancer: a Qualitative Study to Inform the PETNECK2 Trial.Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2022Trial
- Guideline sheets on the side effects of anticancer drugs are useful for general practitioners.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2015Trial
- Article
- Article
- Cancer survivorship in the Western Pacific: from differences to shared-goals and from challenges to opportunities.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Review
- Telemedicine follow-up for pre-malignant and malignant glottic lesions: a randomised controlled trial study protocol comparing care close to home versus standard of care.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- Article
- Recurrent cervical cancer detection using DNA methylation markers in self-collected samples from home.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- A systematic review comparing surveillance recommendations for the detection of recurrence following surgery across 16 common cancer types.BMJ oncology · 2025Article
- Prediction accuracy of discrete choice experiments in health-related research: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Nutritional literacy of patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer based on Nutbeam's health literacy model: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Is it legitimate to use unplanned hospitalizations as a quality indicator for cancer patients? A retrospective French cohort study with special attention to the influence of social deprivation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Content and Duration of Doctor-Patient Communication in Outpatient Oncology Follow-Up Consultations in China.Cureus · 2024Article
- Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer follow-up places a significant burden on hospital outpatient clinics. There are increasing calls to develop alternative models of provision.
aimTo undertake a systematic review of qualitative studies examining patients' and healthcare professionals' views about cancer follow-up. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review.
settingPrimary and secondary care.
methodComprehensive literature searches included: 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of included studies. Eligible studies included qualitative studies examining patients' and healthcare professionals' views of cancer follow-up. Studies of patients with any type of cancer, considered free of active disease, or no longer receiving active treatment were included. Findings were synthesised using thematic analysis.
resultsNineteen studies were included; seven were linked to randomised controlled trials. Eight studies examined the views of healthcare professionals (four of which included GPs) and 16 examined the views of patients. Twelve descriptive themes were identified, from which 12 perceived implications for practice were derived. Most themes related to conventional follow-up in secondary care. Some views concerning other models of care were based on participants' ideas, rather than experiences.
conclusionPatients' main concern is recurrent disease, and they find regular follow-up, expertise of specialists, and quick access to tests reassuring. Information regarding the effectiveness of follow-up is not given to patients who also have unmet information needs, which would help them to cope and be more involved. Continuity of care, unhurried consultations, and psychosocial support are important, but sometimes lacking in secondary care. GPs are thought to be unwilling and to have insufficient time and expertise to conduct follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.