Trial reportAnnals of family medicine
Continuity of Cancer Care and Collaboration Between Family Physicians and Oncologists: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Continuity of Care Interventions Linking Hospital Care to Primary Healthcare for Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancer medicine · 2026Pooled it
- What helps or hinders the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care? A systematic review with narrative synthesis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Web-Based Asynchronous Tool to Facilitate Communication Between Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- Exploring transitions in care for individuals living with and beyond cancer: A qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Interventions to Support Transitions in Care Among Patients With Cancer: A Scoping Review.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Multidisciplinary management of patients with cancer in France: The SINPATIC qualitative study.The European journal of general practice · 2024Article
- Eliciting Older Cancer Patients' Preferences for Follow-Up Care to Inform a Primary Healthcare Follow-Up Model in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2024Article
- Patient and Provider Attitudes and Preferences Regarding Early Palliative Care Delivery for Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Prospective Survey.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Supportive care of patients diagnosed with high grade glioma and their carers in Australia.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2022Article
- Gap between desired and self-determined roles of general practitioners: a multicentre questionnaire study in Japan.BMC family practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCollaboration between family physicians (FPs) and oncologists can be challenging. We present the results of a randomized clinical trial of an intervention designed to improve continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration, as perceived by patients with lung cancer and their FPs.
methodsThe intervention included (1) supplying FPs with standardized summaries related to each patient, (2) recommending that patients see their FP after receiving the cancer diagnosis, (3) supplying the oncology team with patient information resulting from FP visits, and (4) providing patients with priority access to FPs as needed. A total of 206 patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 104) or control group (n = 102), and 86.4% of involved FPs participated. Perceptions of continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration were assessed every 3 months for patients and at baseline and at the end of the study for FPs. Patient distress and health service utilization were also assessed.
resultsPatients and FPs in the intervention group perceived better interprofessional collaboration (patients:
conclusionsThis intervention improved patient and FP perception of interprofessional collaboration, but its effectiveness on continuity of care was less clear for FPs than for patients. Additional strategies should be considered to sustainably improve continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration.
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.