Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35659264›Full record

Trial reportBMC primary care2022

Effects of structured involvement of the primary care team versus standard care after a cancer diagnosis on patient satisfaction and healthcare use: the GRIP randomised controlled trial.

I A A Perfors, C W Helsper, E A Noteboom, E A Visserman, E B L van Dorst, T van Dalen, M A M T Verhagen, A J Witkamp, R Koelemij, A E Flinterman and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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

18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

I A A PerforsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
C W HelsperJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. C.W.Helsper-2@umcutrecht.nl.
E A NoteboomJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E A VissermanDutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organizations, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E B L van DorstGynaecologic Oncology dept., University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
T van DalenSurgery dept., Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M A M T VerhagenGastroenterology dept., Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A J WitkampSurgery dept., University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
R KoelemijSurgery dept., St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
A E FlintermanDermatology dept., Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
K A B M Pruissen-PeetersDermatology dept., St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
F M N H SchramelDepartment for Lung Diseases and Treatment, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
M T M van RensPulmonology dept., Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M F ErnstSurgery dept., Alexander Monro Clinics, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
L M G MoonsGastroenterology dept., University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E van der WallDepartment for Internal Medicine and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
N J de WitJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A M MayJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLDiakonessenhuis hospital · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLAlexander Monro Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe growing number of cancer survivors and treatment possibilities call for more personalised and integrated cancer care. Primary care seems well positioned to support this. We aimed to assess the effects of structured follow-up of a primary care team after a cancer diagnosis.

methodsWe performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial enrolling patients curatively treated for breast, lung, colorectal, gynaecologic cancer or melanoma. In addition to usual cancer care in the control group, patients randomized to intervention were offered a "Time Out consultation" (TOC) with the general practitioner (GP) after diagnosis, and subsequent follow-up during and after treatment by a home care oncology nurse (HON). Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with care (questionnaire: EORTC-INPATSAT-32) and healthcare utilisation. Intention-to-treat linear mixed regression analyses were used for satisfaction with care and other continuous outcome variables. The difference in healthcare utilisation for categorical data was calculated with a Pearson Chi-Square or a Fisher exact test and count data (none versus any) with a log-binomial regression.

resultsWe included 154 patients (control n = 77, intervention n = 77) who were mostly female (75%), mainly diagnosed with breast cancer (51%), and had a mean age of 61 (SD ± 11.9) years. 81% of the intervention patients had a TOC and 68% had HON contact. Satisfaction with care was high (8 out of 10) in both study groups. At 3 months after treatment, GP satisfaction was significantly lower in the intervention group on 3 of 6 subscales, i.e., quality (- 14.2 (95%CI -27.0;-1.3)), availability (- 15,9 (- 29.1;-2.6)) and information provision (- 15.2 (- 29.1;-1.4)). Patients in the intervention group visited the GP practice and the emergency department more often ((RR 1.3 (1.0;1.7) and 1.70 (1.0;2.8)), respectively).

conclusionsIn conclusion, the GRIP intervention, which was designed to involve the primary care team during and after cancer treatment, increased the number of primary healthcare contacts. However, it did not improve patient satisfaction with care and it increased emergency department visits. As the high uptake of the intervention suggests a need of patients, future research should focus on optimizing the design and implementation of the intervention.

trial registrationGRIP is retrospectively (21/06/2016) registered in the 'Netherlands Trial Register' (NTR5909).

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsGeneral PractitionersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPrimary Health CareRetrospective StudiesCancerGeneral practitionersOncologyPatient satisfactionPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID35659264
PMCPMC9166421
OpenAlexW4281633537

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.