ArticleBMC family practice2019
General practitioners' perspectives on chronic care consultations for patients with a history of cancer: a qualitative interview study.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- 'It's like a Gordian knot' - the management of patients with persistent postconcussion symptoms in general practice: a qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- End-of-life care in Germany between 2016 and 2020 - A repeated cross-sectional analysis of statutory health insurance data.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Continuity of care and mortality for patients with chronic disease: an observational study using Norwegian registry data.Family practice · 2023Observational
- A new emergency during the latest phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: access to healthcare services by patients with non-communicable diseases.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Patient perspectives on the management of COPD and Type 2 Diabetes in general practice: an interview study.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- General practitioners' perceptions of treatment of chronically ill patients managed in general practice: An interview study.The European journal of general practice · 2021Article
- Quality indicators for the evaluation of end-of-life care in Germany - a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of statutory health insurance data.BMC palliative care · 2020Article
- The Patient's Narrative Agenda as an assessment tool: the story of Robert, suffering from osteosarcoma.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.