SynthesisBMJ open2022
Factors influencing the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of follow-up strategies for women with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Oncologist and General Practitioner Perspectives of Shared Care for Colorectal Cancer Survivors: A Qualitative Study.Psycho-oncology · 2025Trial
- From information to action: how medical reports can support general practitioners in long-term cancer care-a qualitative exploratory study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Exploring transitions in care for individuals living with and beyond cancer: A qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Advancing implementation of shared care for cancer survivors using a systems thinking approach (the SEAMLESS study).Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Article
- Interventions to Support Transitions in Care Among Patients With Cancer: A Scoping Review.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Patterns of follow-up care in adult blood cancer survivors-Prospective evaluation of health-related outcomes, resource use, and quality of life.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Improving the quality of patient care in lung cancer: key factors for successful multidisciplinary team working.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2024Review
- Acceptability of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A qualitative evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Concordance between General Practitioners and Radiation Oncologists for Cancer Follow-Up Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing incidence of cancer, coupled with improved survivorship, has increased demand for cancer follow-up care and the need to find alternative models of care. Shared cancer follow-up care in general practice is a safe option in terms of quality of life and cancer recurrence; however, there are barriers to translating this into practice. This review aimed to identify factors that influence the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice.
methodsSystematic review. Seven electronic databases: MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, APA Psychinfo, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition and Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, were searched for published papers between January 1999 and December 2021. The narrative review included papers if they were available in full-text, English, peer-reviewed and focused on shared cancer follow-up care.
resultsThirty-eight papers were included in the final review. Five main themes emerged: (1) reciprocal clinical information sharing is needed between oncologists and general practitioners, and needs to be timely and relevant; (2) responsibility of care should be shared with the oncologist overseeing care; (3) general practitioners skills and knowledge to provide cancer follow-up care; (4) need for clinical management guidelines and rapid referral to support general practitioners to provide shared follow-up care and (5) continuity of care and satisfaction of care is vital for shared care.
conclusionThe acceptability of shared cancer follow-up care is increasing. Several barriers still exist to translating this into practice. Work is required to develop a shared-care model that can support general practitioners, while the oncologist can oversee the care and implement two-way communication between general and oncologists' clinics. The move towards integrating electronic healthcare records and web-based platforms for information exchange provides a promise to the timely exchange of information. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020191538.
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.