Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31515421›Full record

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.

Julie Evans, John I Macartney, Clare Bankhead, Charlotte Albury, Daniel Jones, Sue Ziebland, Brian D Nicholson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Shared Decision Making in Psychiatry: Dissolving the Responsibility Problem.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2023
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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 · 2020
    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

7 authors.

Julie EvansNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
John I MacartneyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Clare BankheadNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Charlotte AlburyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Daniel JonesSupportive care, early diagnosis and advanced disease research group, Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK.
Sue ZieblandNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Brian D NicholsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK brian.nicholson@phc.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21500Cancer Research UK C50916/A21500
6 · The paper itself

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

Decision Making, SharedPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansInterviews as TopicMaleNeoplasmsPatientsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Qualitative ResearchUnited Kingdomdiagnosisgeneral practiceneoplasmspatient safetyshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID31515421
PMCPMC6747661

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.