Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35789510›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of cancer care2022

Exploring the views of patients' and their family about patient-initiated follow-up in head and neck cancer: A mixed methods study.

Ava Lorenc, Colin Greaves, Joan Duda, Jo Brett, Lauren Matheson, Tessa Fulton-Lieuw, Denis Secher, Pat Rhodes, Gozde Ozakinci, Paul Nankivell and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of cancer care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Patient-perceived barriers and facilitators for risk-stratified follow-up care in lung cancer: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

13 authors.

Ava LorencQuinteT Research Group, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3254-004X
Colin GreavesSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Joan DudaSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Jo BrettSupportive Cancer Care Research Group, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
Lauren MathesonSupportive Cancer Care Research Group, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2828-7528
Tessa Fulton-LieuwInstitute of Head and Neck Studies and Education (InHANSE), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Denis SecherPatient representatives.
Pat RhodesPatient representatives.
Gozde OzakinciDivision of Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Paul NankivellInstitute of Head and Neck Studies and Education (InHANSE), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4664-6117
Hisham MehannaInstitute of Head and Neck Studies and Education (InHANSE), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Marcus JepsonQuinteT Research Group, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
PETNECK2 Research Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this work was to explore head and neck cancer (HNC) patients' and their family members' views on acceptability and feasibility of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU), including concerns and anticipated benefits.

methodsPatients were recruited from UK HNC clinics, support groups and advocacy groups. They completed a survey (n = 144) and/or qualitative interview (n = 30), three with a family member. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, quantitative data using descriptive statistics.

resultsPreference for follow-up care in HNC was complex and individual. Many patients thought PIFU could beneficially reallocate health care resources and encourage self-management. Patients' main concerns with PIFU were losing the reassurance of regular clinic appointments and addressing mental well-being needs within PIFU, possibly using peer support. Patients were concerned about their ability to detect recurrence due to lack of expertise and information. They emphasised the importance of a reliable, direct and easy urgent appointment service and of feeling supported and heard by clinicians. Patients believed family and friends need support.

conclusionPIFU may be feasible and acceptable for certain HNC patients, providing it addresses support for mental well-being, provides quick, reliable and direct clinician access and information on "red flag" symptoms, and ensures patients and their caregivers feel supported.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsSelf-ManagementCaregiversFamilyFollow-Up StudiesHumanshead and neck cancerpatient educationpatient informationpsychologicalsupportive careusers

Identifiers

PMID35789510
PMCPMC9787693

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.