ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2018
Responsibility for follow-up during the diagnostic process in primary care: a secondary analysis of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Implementation of a Quality Improvement and Clinical Decision Support Tool for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care: Process Evaluation.JMIR cancer · 2025Trial
- Continuity of care in UK primary care: a scoping review of measures, challenges, and future interventions.Primary health care research & development · 2026Article
- Article
- Optimising GPs' communication of advice to facilitate patients' self-care and prompt follow-up when the diagnosis is uncertain: a realist review of 'safety-netting' in primary care.BMJ quality & safety · 2022Review
- Pluralistic task shifting for a more timely cancer diagnosis. A grounded theory study from a primary care perspective.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2021Article
- Can patients contribute to enhancing the safety and effectiveness of test-result follow-up? Qualitative outcomes from a health consumer workshop.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Article
- Safety netting in routine primary care consultations: an observational study using video-recorded UK consultations.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Observational
- Development of a tool for coding safety-netting behaviours in primary care: a mixed-methods study using existing UK consultation recordings.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- Quality improvements of safety-netting guidelines for cancer in UK primary care: insights from a qualitative interview study of GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- Article
- Exploring public attitudes towards the new Faster Diagnosis Standard for cancer: a focus group study with the UK public.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- Association between GPs' suspicion of cancer and patients' usual consultation pattern in primary care: a cross-sectional study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- GPs' understanding and practice of safety netting for potential cancer presentations: a qualitative study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is unclear to what extent primary care practitioners (PCPs) should retain responsibility for follow-up to ensure that patients are monitored until their symptoms or signs are explained.
aimTo explore the extent to which PCPs retain responsibility for diagnostic follow-up actions across 11 international jurisdictions. DESIGN AND
settingA secondary analysis of survey data from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership.
methodThe authors counted the proportion of 2879 PCPs who retained responsibility for each area of follow-up (appointments, test results, and non-attenders). Proportions were weighted by the sample size of each jurisdiction. Pooled estimates were obtained using a random-effects model, and UK estimates were compared with non-UK ones. Free-text responses were analysed to contextualise quantitative findings using a modified grounded theory approach.
resultsPCPs varied in their retention of responsibility for follow-up from 19% to 97% across jurisdictions and area of follow-up. Test reconciliation was inadequate in most jurisdictions. Significantly fewer UK PCPs retained responsibility for test result communication (73% versus 85%,
conclusionThe degree to which PCPs retain responsibility for follow-up is dependent on their level of concern about the patient and their primary care system's properties. Integrated systems to support follow-up are at present underutilised, and research into their development, uptake, and effectiveness seems warranted.
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.