ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
Do primary care physicians lose contact with their colorectal cancer patients?
Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incidence and Predictors of Diabetes Mellitus after a Diagnosis of Early-Stage Breast Cancer in the Elderly Using Real-World Data.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020Article
- Impact of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma on visits to different provider specialties among elderly Medicare beneficiaries: challenges for care coordination.Translational behavioral medicine · 2018Article
- Regional Variation in Primary Care Involvement at the End of Life.Annals of family medicine · 2017Article
- Primary care physician use across the breast cancer care continuum: CanIMPACT study using Canadian administrative data.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2016Article
- Health-care utilization by prognosis profile in a managed care setting: using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Survival Calculator SEER*CSC.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care physicians and patients perceive that they lose contact with each other after a cancer diagnosis. The objective of this study was to determine whether colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are less likely to see their primary care physicians after cancer diagnosis.
methodsThis was a longitudinal cohort study using 1993 to 2001 Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare claims data. Eligible patients were those with stage 0 to 1 and 2 to 3 CRC aged 67 to 89 years at diagnosis. Main measures included the proportion of individuals with a face-to-face primary care visit and mean annual primary care visits per patient at baseline and during 5 years after treatment.
resultsFewer than half of the cancer patients visited with a primary care physician at baseline. In the first year after treatment, patients with stage 0 to 1 CRC (48.9% vs 53.3%; P ≤ .001) and stage 2 to 3 CRC (43.6% vs 53.4%; P ≤ .001) significantly increased their likelihood of visiting a primary care physician from baseline. The proportion of patients with stage 0 to 1 CRC with a primary care visit remained relatively stable, and the proportion of patients with stage 2 to 3 CRC decreased somewhat between the first and fifth year after treatment. The findings for mean annual primary care visits per patient roughly paralleled those for the proportion of individuals with a primary care visit.
conclusionsElderly patients with CRC, especially stage 2 to 3 CRC, increase rather than decrease contact with primary care providers after diagnosis. More work is needed to understand the care that different physician specialties provide cancer patients and to support their collaboration.
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.