ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2018
The Effectiveness of Shared Care in Cancer Survivors-A Systematic Review.
Article in International journal of integrated care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
51 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Experiences of Oesophageal Cancer Survivorship After Oesophagectomy.Psycho-oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Continuity of Care Interventions Linking Hospital Care to Primary Healthcare for Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancer medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Models of survivorship care in patients with head and neck cancer in regional, rural, and remote areas: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Pooled it
- Factors influencing the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Facilitators and barriers to shared primary and specialist cancer care: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Pooled it
- Oncologist and General Practitioner Perspectives of Shared Care for Colorectal Cancer Survivors: A Qualitative Study.Psycho-oncology · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Article
- The receipt of psychological services and acceptability of local follow-up care for childhood cancer survivors: are there rural vs. urban differences?Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Cancer survivorship in the Western Pacific: from differences to shared-goals and from challenges to opportunities.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Review
- Mapping of current resources and models of care for paediatric cancer survivors in Asia: a multinational survey.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Use of the Survivors' Unmet Needs Survey (SUNS) Framework to Understand the Needs of Colorectal Cancer Survivors in Thailand: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Continuity of Cancer Care: Female Participants' Report of Healthcare Experiences After Conclusion of Primary Treatment.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Observational
- Article
- A Breast cAncer Survivorship Inter-Professional Community (BASIC) Shared Care Model to Promote Healthy Behaviors in Singapore: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Patient Experiences of Integrative health CarE [PEICE]: A cross-sectional study.Integrative medicine research · 2025Article
- An exploration of nursing and Allied Health Professional (AHP)-led post-treatment surveillance and survivorship care for people with head and neck cancer-a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Models of care and associated targeted implementation strategies for cancer survivorship support in Europe: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Cancer Survivorship and the Significance of an Integrated Diachronic Life Course Perspective.Sociology of health & illness · 2025Review
- Myths and Presumptions About Cancer Survivorship.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether the shared care model during the follow-up of cancer survivors is effective in terms of patient-reported outcomes, clinical outcomes, and continuity of care.
methodsUsing systematic review methods, studies were searched from six electronic databases-MEDLINE (n = 474), British Nursing Index (n = 320), CINAHL (n = 437), Cochrane Library (n = 370), HMIC (n = 77), and Social Care Online (n = 210). The review considered all health-related outcomes that evaluated the effectiveness of shared care for cancer survivors.
resultsEight randomised controlled trials and three descriptive papers were identified. The results showed the likelihood of similar effectiveness between shared care and usual care in terms of quality of life, mental health outcomes, unmet needs, and clinical outcomes in cancer survivorship. The reviewed studies indicated that shared care overall is highly acceptable to cancer survivors and primary care practitioners, and shared care might be cheaper than usual care.
conclusionsThe results from this review suggest that the patient satisfaction of shared care is higher than usual care, and the effectiveness of shared care is similar to usual care in cancer survivorship. Interventions that formally involve primary care and improve the communication between primary care and hospital care could support the PCPs in the follow-up.
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.