Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37583292›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2023

Acceptability of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A qualitative evaluation.

Tiffany Sandell, Heike Schütze, Andrew Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2023
    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

3 authors.

Tiffany SandellSchool of Graduate Medicine, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8935-7676
Heike SchützeSchool of Graduate Medicine, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4766-523X
Andrew MillerIllawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Cancer Services, Nowra, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3044-3358

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFacilitators to implement shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice include mechanisms to allow the oncologist to continue overseeing the care of their patient, two-way information sharing and clear follow-up protocols for general practitioners (GPs). This paper aimed to evaluate patients, GPs and radiation oncologists (ROs) acceptance of a shared care intervention.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted pre- and post intervention with patients that were 3 years post radiotherapy treatment for breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, their RO, and their GP. Inductive and deductive thematical analysis was employed.

resultsThirty-two participants were interviewed (19 patients, 9 GPs, and 4 ROs). Pre intervention, there was support for GPs to play a greater role in cancer follow-up care, however, patients were concerned about the GPs cancer-specific skills. Patients, GPs and ROs were concerned about increasing the GPs workload. Post intervention, participants were satisfied that the GPs had specific skills and that the impact on GP workload was comparable to writing a referral. However, GPs expressed concern about remuneration. GPs and ROs felt the model provided patient choice and were suitable for low-risk, stable patients around 2-3 years post treatment. Patients emphasised that they trusted their RO to advise them on the most appropriate follow-up model suited to their individual situation. The overall acceptance of shared care depended on successful health technology to connect the GP and RO. There were no differences in patient acceptance between rural, regional, and cancer types. ROs presented differences in acceptance for the different cancer types, with breast cancer strongly supported.

conclusionPatients, GPs and ROs felt this shared cancer follow-up model of care was acceptable, but only if the RO remained directly involved and the health technology worked. There is a need to review funding and advocate for health technology advances to support integration. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients treated with curative radiotherapy for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, their RO and their GPs were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsGeneral PractitionersProstatic NeoplasmsFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleQualitative ResearchRadiation OncologistsReactive Oxygen SpeciesReactive Oxygen Speciescancer follow-upgeneral practitionershared caresurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID37583292
PMCPMC10632636

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.