Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35172743›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2022

Delivering colon cancer survivorship care in primary care; a qualitative study on the experiences of general practitioners.

Julien A M Vos, Robin de Best, Laura A M Duineveld, Henk C P M van Weert, Kristel M van Asselt

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

Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julien A M VosDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Postbox 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, the Netherlands. j.a.m.vos@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-3383-8171
Robin de BestDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Postbox 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, the Netherlands.
Laura A M DuineveldDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Postbox 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, the Netherlands.
Henk C P M van WeertDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Postbox 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, the Netherlands.
Kristel M van AsseltDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Postbox 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, the Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLPublic Health Service of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith more patients in need of oncological care, there is a growing interest to transfer survivorship care from specialist to general practitioner (GP). The ongoing I CARE study was initiated in 2015 in the Netherlands to compare (usual) surgeon- to GP-led survivorship care, with or without access to a supporting eHealth application (Oncokompas).

methodsSemi-structured interviews were held at two separate points in time (i.e. after 1- and 5-years of care) to explore GPs' experiences with delivering this survivorship care intervention, and study its implementation into daily practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 GPs. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework.

resultsOverall, delivering survivorship care was not deemed difficult and dealing with cancer repercussions was already considered part of a GPs' work. Though GPs readily identified advantages for patients, caregivers and society, differences were seen in GPs' commitment to the intervention and whether it felt right for them to be involved. Patients' initiative with respect to planning, absence of symptoms and regular check-ups due to other chronic care were considered to facilitate the delivery of care. Prominent barriers included GPs' lack of experience and routine, but also lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for organising care. Need for a monitoring system was often mentioned to reduce the risk of non-compliance. GPs were reticent about a possible future transfer of survivorship care towards primary care due to increases in workload and financial constraints. GPs were not aware of their patients' use of eHealth.

conclusionsGPs' opinions and beliefs about a possible future role in colon cancer survivorship care vary. Though GPs recognize potential benefit, there is no consensus about transferring survivorship care to primary care on a permanent basis. Barriers and facilitators to implementation highlight the importance of both personal and system level factors. Conditions are put forth relating to time, reorganisation of infrastructure, extra personnel and financial compensation.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register; NTR4860 . Registered on the 2nd of October 2014.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsGeneral PractitionersNeoplasmsColonHumansPrimary Health CareSurvivorshipCancer survivorship careColon CancerGeneral practitionersImplementation sciencesNormalisation process theoryPrimary health careQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID35172743
PMCPMC8761520
OpenAlexW4206129360

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.