Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27802453›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2016

Determining cancer survivors' preferences to inform new models of follow-up care.

Peter Murchie, Patricia F Norwood, Marta Pietrucin-Materek, Terry Porteous, Philip C Hannaford, Mandy Ryan

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Whether preferences of gastric cancer patients after surgery for follow-up change over time? Analysis based on discrete choice experiment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Improved models of care for cancer survivors.Lancet (London, England) · 2022
    Review
  17. Preferences of gastric cancer survivors for follow-up care-a multicenter discrete choice experiment study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  18. The Colorectal Telephone Clinic: a new normal post-COVID-19?Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Peter MurchieCentre for Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK.
Patricia F NorwoodHealth Economics Research Unit (HERU), Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK.
Marta Pietrucin-MaterekCentre for Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK.
Terry PorteousHealth Services Research Unit (HSRU), Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK.
Philip C HannafordCentre for Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK.
Mandy RyanHealth Economics Research Unit (HERU), Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HERU1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpecialist-led cancer follow-up is becoming increasingly expensive and is failing to meet many survivors' needs. Alternative models informed by survivors' preferences are urgently needed. It is unknown if follow-up preferences differ by cancer type. We conducted the first study to assess British cancer survivors' follow-up preferences, and the first anywhere to compare the preferences of survivors from different cancers.

methodsA discrete choice experiment questionnaire was mailed to 1201 adults in Northeast Scotland surviving melanoma, breast, prostate or colorectal cancer. Preferences and trade-offs for attributes of cancer follow-up were explored, overall and by cancer site.

results668 (56.6%) recipients (132 melanoma, 213 breast, 158 prostate, 165 colorectal) responded. Cancer survivors had a strong preference to see a consultant during a face-to-face appointment when receiving cancer follow-up. However, cancer survivors appeared willing to accept follow-up from specialist nurses, registrars or GPs provided that they are compensated by increased continuity of care, dietary advice and one-to-one counselling. Longer appointments were also valued. Telephone and web-based follow-up and group counselling, were not considered desirable. Survivors of colorectal cancer and melanoma would see any alternative provider for greater continuity, whereas breast cancer survivors wished to see a registrar or specialist nurse, and prostate cancer survivors, a general practitioner.

conclusionsCancer survivors may accept non-consultant follow-up if compensated with changes elsewhere. Care continuity was sufficient compensation for most cancers. Given practicalities, costs and the potential to develop continuous care, specialist nurse-led cancer follow-up may be attractive.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalSurvivorsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27802453
PMCPMC5155354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.