ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2020
How do patients with malignant brain tumors experience general practice care and support? Qualitative analysis of English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) data.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can cognitive function tests discriminate between patients with glioma and healthy controls prior to treatment? A systematic review.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- What are the experiences of supportive care in people affected by brain cancer and their informal caregivers: A qualitative systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024Pooled it
- Identifying components of care coordination for primary brain tumor: A scoping review.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Review
- Article
- 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
- Computer-assisted textual analysis of free-text comments in the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences (SCAPE) survey.BMC health services research · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnglish Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) data show patients with brain cancer report the least-positive experiences of general practice support. We aimed to understand these findings by identifying the issues described in qualitative survey feedback and suggest how care may be improved.
methodsWe reviewed 2699 qualitative comments made to open questions about what was good or might be improved about National Health Service care between 2010 and 2014. We identified 84 (3%) specific comments about general practice care and used open coding and framework analysis to develop a thematic framework.
resultsWe identified 3 key themes and 12 subthemes: first, the experience of initial diagnosis by a general practitioner (GP), including apparent complexity of making the diagnosis, apparent slowness in referral for investigation, referral made by patient or family, delay in receiving scan results, and whether the GP quickly identified the problem and referred to a specialist; second, the experience of care and support from the general practice, including lack of supportive response from the GP, lack of follow-up care from the GP, lack of family involvement by the GP, lack of GP knowledge about management, and whether the GP responded in a supportive way to the diagnosis; and third, the experience of overall coordination in care, including lack of communication between the hospital and general practice and good communication about the care plan.
conclusionQualitative responses from patients with brain cancer reveal their needs for better emotional and practical support within primary care. Suggestions include increasing the speed of initial referral for investigation, the depth of discussion about diagnostic difficulties, and developing coordinated care plans with cancer centers.
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.