Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34736413›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2021

Type of treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction play an important role in primary care contact during prostate cancer follow-up: results from the population-based PROFILES registry.

Barbara M Wollersheim, Mies van Eenbergen, Kristel M van Asselt, Laurent M C L Fossion, Evert L Koldewijn, Jorg R Oddens, Eric H Oomens, Bart P Wijsman, Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse, Nicole P M Ezendam

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Barbara M WollersheimDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. b.wollersheim@nki.nl.
Mies van EenbergenDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Kristel M van AsseltDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Laurent M C L FossionDepartment of Urology, CHU Brugmann Hospital, Brussels, Belgium.
Evert L KoldewijnDepartment of Urology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Jorg R OddensDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eric H OomensDepartment of Urology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
Bart P WijsmanDepartment of Urology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Lonneke V van de Poll-FranseDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nicole P M EzendamDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation · NLAmphia Ziekenhuis · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Brugmann · BEElisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the increasing attention for the role of General Practitioners (GPs) after cancer treatment, it is important to better understand the involvement of GPs following prostate cancer treatment. This study investigates factors associated with GP contact during follow-up of prostate cancer survivors, such as patient, treatment and symptom variables, and satisfaction with, trust in, and appraised knowledge of GPs.

methodsOf 787 prostate cancer survivors diagnosed between 2007 and 2013, and selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, 557 (71%) responded to the invitation to complete a questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate which variables were associated with GP contact during follow- up.

resultsIn total, 200 (42%) prostate cancer survivors had contact with their GP during follow-up, and 76 (16%) survivors preferred more contact. Survivors who had an intermediate versus low educational level (OR = 2.0) were more likely to have had contact with their GP during follow-up. Survivors treated with surgery (OR = 2.8) or hormonal therapy (OR = 3.5) were also more likely to seek follow-up care from their GP compared to survivors who were treated with active surveillance. Patient reported bowel symptoms (OR = 1.4), hormonal symptoms (OR = 1.4), use of incontinence aids (OR = 1.6), and being satisfied with their GP (OR = 9.5) were also significantly associated with GP contact during follow-up.

conclusionsEducation, treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction were associated with GP contact during prostate cancer follow-up. These findings highlight the potential for adverse side-effects to be managed in primary care. In light of future changes in cancer care, evaluating prostate cancer follow-up in primary care remains important.

Indexed as

General PractitionersProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMalePatient SatisfactionPrimary Health CareRegistriesSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvivorsFollow-upGeneral practitionerPrimary healthcare contactProstate cancer survivors

Identifiers

PMID34736413
PMCPMC8569955
OpenAlexW3208916686

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.