ArticleBMJ open2019
How do GPs and patients share the responsibility for cancer safety netting follow-up actions? A qualitative interview study of GPs and patients in Oxfordshire, UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploration of Physiotherapists' Understanding and Application of Safety Netting Procedures in France-A Qualitative Study.Musculoskeletal care · 2026Article
- Communicating abnormal cervical cancer screening results - a focus group study with general practitioners in Norway.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- In Defence of Causing Patients to Worry: Ethical Issues in the Communication of Diagnostic Uncertainty.Bioethics · 2025Article
- The pathway to diagnosis of early-onset colorectal cancer: exploring diagnostic intervals and their effect on outcomes.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Safety-netting advice documentation in out-of-hours primary care: a retrospective cohort from 2013 to 2020.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Role of communicating diagnostic uncertainty in the safety-netting process: insights from a vignette study.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Article
- Safety-netting strategies for primary and emergency care: a codesign study with patients, carers and clinicians in Sweden.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Patients' and clinicians' views on the appropriate use of safety-netting advice in consultations-an interview study from Sweden.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Electronic safety-netting tool features considered important by UK general practice staff: an interview and Delphi consensus study.BJGP open · 2023Article
- Shared Decision Making in Psychiatry: Dissolving the Responsibility Problem.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2023Article
- 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
- Healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2022Article
- Exploring the experiences of patients, general practitioners and oncologists of prostate cancer follow-up: A qualitative interview study.European journal of oncology nursing : the official journal of European Oncology Nursing Society · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore patients' and General Practitioners' (GPs) accounts of how responsibility for follow-up was perceived and shared in their experiences of cancer safety netting occurring within the past 6 months.
designIn-depth interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed through an abductive process, exploring anticipated and emergent themes. Conceptualisations of 'responsibility' were explored by drawing on a SETTINGS AND
participantsA purposive sample of 25 qualified GPs and 23 adult patients in Oxfordshire, UK.
resultsThe transactional sharing approach involves responsibility being passed from GP to patient. Patients expected and were willing to accept responsibility in this way as long as they received clear guidance from their GP and had capacity. In interdependent sharing, GPs principally aimed to reach consensus and share responsibility with the patient by explaining their rationale, uncertainty or by stressing the potential seriousness of the situation. Patients sharing this responsibility could be put at risk if no follow-up or timeframe was suggested, they had inadequate information, were falsely reassured or their concerns were not addressed at re-consultation.
conclusionGPs and patients exchange and share responsibility using a combination of transactional and interdependent styles, tailoring information based on patient characteristics and each party's level of concern. Clear action plans (written where necessary) at the end of every consultation would help patients decide when to re-consult. Further research should investigate how responsibility is shared within and outside the consultation, within primary care teams and with specialist services.
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.