ArticleThe British journal of dermatology2019
Factors influencing current low-value follow-up care after basal cell carcinoma and suggested strategies for de-adoption: a qualitative study.
Article in The British journal of dermatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Factors associated with patients' demand for low-value care: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- What influences the outcome of active disinvestment processes in healthcare? A qualitative interview study on five recent cases of active disinvestment.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- What are the most important factors in basal cell carcinoma follow-up care? The perspective of patients.Skin health and disease · 2021Article
- What do patients and dermatologists prefer regarding low-risk basal cell carcinoma follow-up care? A discrete choice experiment.PloS one · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProviding follow-up to patients with low-risk basal cell carcinoma (BCC) can be considered as low-value care. However, dermatologists still provide substantial follow-up care to this patient group, for reasons not well understood.
objectivesTo identify factors influencing current BCC follow-up practices among dermatologists and suggested strategies to de-adopt this low-value care. In addition, views of patients regarding follow-up care were explored.
methodsA qualitative study was conducted consisting of 18 semistructured interviews with dermatologists and three focus groups with a total of 17 patients with low-risk BCC who had received dermatological care. The interviews focused on current follow-up practices, influencing factors and suggested strategies to de-adopt the follow-up care. The focus groups discussed preferred follow-up schedules and providers, as well as the content of follow-up. All (group) interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by two researchers using ATLAS.ti software.
resultsFactors influencing current follow-up care practices among dermatologists included complying with patients' preferences, lack of trust in general practitioners (GPs), financial incentives and force of habit. Patients reported varying needs regarding periodic follow-up visits, preferred to be seen by a dermatologist and indicated a need for improved information provision. Suggested strategies by dermatologists to de-adopt the low-value care encompassed educating patients with improved information, educating GPs to increase trust of dermatologists, realizing appropriate financial reimbursement and informing dermatologists about the low value of care.
conclusionsA mixture of factors appear to contribute to current follow-up practices after low-risk BCC. In order to de-adopt this low-value care, strategies should be aimed at dermatologists and GPs, and also patients.
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.