ArticleQualitative health research2015
Physician perspectives on colorectal cancer surveillance care in a changing environment.
Article in Qualitative health research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of patient perspectives on surveillance after colorectal cancer treatment.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2017Pooled it
- Breast and colorectal cancer survivors' experience with transition to primary care provider follow-up care : A qualitative study on cancer type and sex.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2025Article
- Association between gastrointestinal symptoms and specialty care utilization among colon cancer survivors: a cohort study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Surveillance for colorectal cancer survivors in an integrated safety-net health system in the United States.International journal of care coordination · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this formative qualitatively driven mixed-methods study was to refine a measurement tool for use in interventions to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance care. We employed key informant interviews to explore the attitudes, practices, and preferences of four physician specialties. A national survey, literature review, and expert consultation also informed survey development. Cognitive pretesting obtained participant feedback to improve the survey's face and content validity and reliability. Results showed that additional domains were needed to reflect contemporary interdisciplinary trends in survivorship care, evolving practice changes and current health policy. Observed dissonance in specialists' perspectives poses challenges for the development of interventions and psychometrically sound measurement. Implications for future research include need for a flexible care model with enhanced communication and role definitions among clinical specialists, improvements in surveillance at multilevels (patients, providers, and systems), and measurement tools that focus on multispecialty involvement and the changing practice and policy environment.
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.