ArticleBMC cancer2017
A survey to determine usual care after cancer treatment within the United Kingdom national health service.
Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Considering late effects costs in radiotherapy funding.The British journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Development of ACT+: A Novel, Person-Centred Psychological Intervention Based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) to Improve Quality of Life in Patients Living With and Beyond Cancer.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Article
- Association between low total serum testosterone and body mass index in Australian survivors of testicular cancer: a retrospective analysis.Basic and clinical andrology · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- A follow-up study (2007-2018) on American Tegumentary Leishmaniasis in the municipality of Caratinga, Minas Gerais State, Brazil: Spatial analyses and sand fly collection.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Article
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundApproximately one third of cancer survivors in the United Kingdom face ongoing and debilitating psychological and physical symptoms related to poor quality of life. Very little is known about current post-cancer treatment services.
methodsOncology healthcare professionals (HCPs) were invited to take part in a survey, which gathered both quantitative and free text data about the content and delivery of cancer aftercare and patient needs. Analysis involved descriptive statistics and content analysis.
resultsThere were 163 complete responses from 278 survey participants; 70% of NHS acute trusts provided data. HCPs views on patient post-cancer treatment needs were most frequently: fear of recurrence (95%), fatigue (94%), changes in physical capabilities (89%), anxiety (89%) and depression (88%). A median number of 2 aftercare sessions were provided (interquartile range: 1,4) lasting between 30 and 60 min. Usually these were provided face-to-face and intermittently by a HCP. However, sessions did not necessarily address the issues HCPs asserted as important. Themes from free-text responses highlighted inconsistencies in care, uncertain funding for services and omission of some evidence based approaches.
conclusionProvision of post-cancer treatment follow-up care is neither universal nor consistent in the NHS, nor does it address needs HCPs identified as most important.
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.