ArticleBMC public health2022
Patients' perception of colorectal cancer surveillance in the community: an exploratory study.
Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAll patients who underwent curative resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) are frequently reviewed in tertiary institutions to ensure timely detection of any disease recurrence. There has been no local study that evaluated the feasibility of monitoring their condition in the community as a possible new model of care. This study henceforth seeks to understand CRC patients' views and receptiveness of having their surveillance consultations conducted in a community setting.
methodsWe convenience sampled Stage I and II CRC patients who were within five years post-operation in the outpatient clinics. An open-ended questionnaire aimed at elucidating their perception towards cancer surveillance in a community setting was administered. Content analysis was used to group and quantify responses from participants.
resultsTwenty-five participants agreed to participate in the study. Only 48% of the participants felt that having phlebotomy procedures in a community or home setting was acceptable. Participants were less willing to be reviewed by a physician who is not their primary surgeon, with only 32% agreeable to seeing a different doctor for surveillance if given a choice. However, most participants were open to having a telephone consultation in place of a physical face-to-face consultation before (72%) and after (76%) going through medical imaging.
conclusionsParticipants remained keen to be managed by their primary surgeons and were hesitant towards having their follow-up surveillance consultations in community and primary care settings. Further studies should be conducted to understand whether these perceptions are generalisable, and if more can be done to change public perception towards the role of community and primary care institutions.
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.