ArticleBMJ open2024
Patient experiences with patient-led, home-based follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-initiated follow-up in surgical specialties: meta-analysis and meta-regression.BJS open · 2026Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe number of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in need of oncological follow-up is growing. As a response, patient-led, home-based follow-up (PHFU) was developed, implemented and assessed. The aim of this study was to investigate how patients experienced PHFU.
designA qualitative study with individual semistructured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed through an inductive, double-coding approach.
settingA university medical centre in the Netherlands.
participants12 curatively treated patients with CRC who received PHFU were included after purposive sampling.
resultsOverall, participants (N=12) were satisfied with PHFU. The time and cost-saving aspects for patient and hospital were evidently valued. PHFU was experienced as a shared effort, but patients felt like the primary responsibility remained in the hospital. Patients mentioned a decreased personal interaction with their healthcare provider (HCP) and felt a higher threshold to ask for help. However, all major questions were still addressed. Patients felt sufficiently competent to interpret their individual test results but experienced difficulty in interpreting repeated increases in carcinoembryonic antigen levels within the normal range. Educational status, age and a complicated disease course were seen as factors limiting the applicability of PHFU, and it was expressed that PHFU should be offered as an alternative instead of a novel standard of care.
conclusionsAccording to patients, PHFU has great potential. However, PHFU may not be suitable for every CRC patient, and factors such as educational status, age and disease course should be taken into consideration. Patient and HCP have a shared responsibility to help successfully organise PHFU in practice.
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.