ArticleBMC family practice2019
Understanding primary care-oncology relationships within a changing healthcare environment.
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 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of risk factors associated with depression and anxiety in cancer patients.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Using co-design to develop actionable strategies to identify and follow-up on breast cancer survivors in primary care.BMC health services research · 2026Trial
- Advancing care coordination to enhance shared care for complex cancer survivors in primary care (ACCESS-PC): protocol for a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation trial.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Advancing oncology care excellence through timely, multidisciplinary-navigation models for non-palliative breast and colorectal cancer.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026Article
- Provider and Organizational Factors Impacting Routine Cancer Screening Among Older Medicaid Enrollees.Health services research · 2026Article
- Spatial Access to Cancer Care Providers in National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center Catchment Areas.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2026Article
- Attrition after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Foregut Cancer: Experience at a Tertiary Center in the Deep South.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Medication Prescriptions for Chronic Diseases in Terminal Cancer Patients in Korea: A Real-World Study.Journal of hospice and palliative care · 2025Article
- Adapting and implementing breast cancer follow-up in primary care: protocol for a mixed methods hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized study.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Identification of an oncological clinical pathway through questionnaires to health professionals.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Quantifying the Impact of Family Doctors on the Care Experiences of Patients with Cancer: Exploring Evidence from the 2021 Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey in Alberta, Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Health care costs for adolescents and young adults with cancer: a Wisconsin community-based hospital study between 2005 and 2020.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Assessing Cancer History Accuracy in Primary Care Electronic Health Records Through Cancer Registry Linkage.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Article
- Fragmentation of Care Among Black Women With Breast Cancer and Comorbidities: The Role of Health Systems.JCO oncology practice · 2021Article
- Recent Innovations in Primary Care Cancer Survivorship Roles.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundManagement of care transitions from primary care into and out of oncology is critical for optimal care of cancer patients and cancer survivors. There is limited understanding of existing primary care-oncology relationships within the context of the changing health care environment.
methodsThrough a comparative case study of 14 innovative primary care practices throughout the United States (U.S.), we examined relationships between primary care and oncology settings to identify attributes contributing to strengthened relationships in diverse settings. Field researchers observed practices for 10-12 days, recording fieldnotes and conducting interviews. We created a reduced dataset of all text related to primary care-oncology relationships, and collaboratively identified patterns to characterize these relationships through an inductive "immersion/crystallization" analysis process.
resultsNine of the 14 practices discussed having either formal or informal primary care-oncology relationships. Nearly all formal primary care-oncology relationships were embedded within healthcare systems. The majority of private, independent practices had more informal relationships between individual primary care physicians and specific oncologists. Practices with formal relationships noted health system infrastructure that facilitates transfer of patient information and timely referrals. Practices with informal relationships described shared commitment, trust, and rapport with specific oncologists. Regardless of relationship type, challenges reported by primary care settings included lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities during cancer treatment and beyond.
conclusionsWith the rapid transformation of U.S. healthcare towards system ownership of primary care practices, efforts are needed to integrate strengths of informal primary care-oncology relationships in addition to formal system driven relationships.
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.