Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31455259›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2019

General practitioners' perspectives on chronic care consultations for patients with a history of cancer: a qualitative interview study.

Anne Beiter Arreskov, Anette Hauskov Graungaard, Mads Toft Kristensen, Jens Søndergaard, Annette Sofie Davidsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anne Beiter ArreskovDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. anne.arreskov@sund.ku.dk.ORCID 0000-0001-5097-7563
Anette Hauskov GraungaardDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mads Toft KristensenDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jens SøndergaardInstitute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Annette Sofie DavidsenDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) are responsible for managing chronic care in the growing population of patients with comorbid chronic conditions and cancer. Studies have shown, however, that cancer patients are less likely to receive appropriate chronic care compared to patients without cancer. Patients say that how GPs engage in the care of comorbidities influences their own priority of these conditions. No studies have explored GPs' attitudes to and prioritization of chronic care in patients who have completed primary cancer treatment. This study aims to explore GPs' experiences, prioritization of, and perspectives on treatment and follow-up of patients with cancer and comorbidity.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted during 2016 with 13 GPs in Region Zealand in Denmark. We used Systematic Text Condensation in the analysis.

resultsAll participating GPs said that chronic care in patients with a history of cancer was a high priority, and due to a clear structure in their practice, they experienced that few patients were lost to follow-up. Two different approaches to chronic care consultations were identified: one group of GPs described them as imitating outpatient clinics, where the GP sets the agenda and focuses on the chronic condition. The other group described an approach that was more attuned to the patient's agenda, which could mean that chronic care consultations served as an "alibi" for the patients to disclose other matters of concern. Both groups of GPs said that chronic care consultations for these patients supported normalcy, but in different ways. Some GPs said that offering future appointments in the chronic care process gave patients hope and a sense of normalcy. Other GPs strove for normalcy by focusing exclusively on the chronic condition and dealing with cancer as cured.

conclusionsThe participating GPs gave a high priority to chronic care in patients with a history of cancer. Some GPs, however, followed a rigorous agenda. GPs should be aware that a very focused and biomedical approach to chronic care might increase fragmentation of care and collide with a holistic and patient-centered approach. It could also affect GPs' self-perception of their role and the core values of general practice.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGeneral PractitionersAdultAgedChronic DiseaseDenmarkFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsAgendaCancerChronic careGeneral practitionersNormalcyPrimary carePrioritizing

Identifiers

PMID31455259
PMCPMC6710867
OpenAlexW2970820231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.