Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26649452›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2015

General practitioners' attitudes toward follow-up after cancer treatment: A cross-sectional questionnaire study.

Heidi Lidal Fidjeland, Mette Brekke, Ingvild Vistad

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Exploring Family Physician Training Needs to Improve Cancer Patient Care.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023
    Article
  7. Acceptability of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A qualitative evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  8. Hobson's choice or a horned dilemma: a grounded theory on adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy verified with breast cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Late-effect awareness and follow-up of cancer in general practice.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Heidi Lidal Fidjelanda Department of General Practice , Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo , Norway ;
Mette Brekkea Department of General Practice , Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo , Norway ;
Ingvild Vistadb Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology , Sørlandet Hospital , Kristiansand , Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAn increasing number of cancer patients place a significant workload on hospital outpatient clinics, and health authorities are considering alternative follow-up regimens. It has been suggested that follow-up of cancer patients could be provided by GPs. This study aimed to explore GPs' experiences with the provision of follow-up care for cancer patients, and their views on assuming greater responsibility in the future.

designElectronic questionnaire study. SUBJECTS: GPs in seven regions in Norway.

resultsA total of 317 GPs responded. Many GPs reported experience in providing follow-up care to cancer patients, during the years following initial diagnosis primarily in collaboration with hospital specialists. More than half of the GPs were satisfied with their collaboration. Most GPs preferred to be involved at an early stage in follow-up care and, generally, GPs felt confident in their skills to provide this type of service. Fewer than 10% were willing to assume responsibility for additional cancer patients, citing potentially increased workload as the main reason.

conclusionsGPs acknowledged the importance of providing follow-up care to cancer patients, and the majority felt confident in their own ability to provide such care. However, they were hesitant to assume greater responsibility primarily due to fears of increased workload. Key Points It has been suggested that follow-up of cancer patients can be provided by general practitioners (GPs). The viewpoints and attitudes of GPs regarding such follow-up were investigated. GPs reported broad experience in providing follow-up care to patients after active cancer treatment. GPs acknowledged the importance of follow-up care, and they felt confident in their own ability to provide such care. Fewer than 10% of GPs were willing to assume responsibility for additional cancer patients, citing potentially increased workload as the main reason.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelFamily PracticeGeneral PractitionersAdultAftercareContinuity of Patient CareCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsNorwaySurveys and QuestionnairesWorkloadAttitudescancer patientscancer survivorsfollow-up caregeneral practiceNorwayprimary care physician

Identifiers

PMID26649452
PMCPMC4750731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.