SynthesisCancer medicine2023
Systematic review of patients' and healthcare professionals' views on patient-initiated follow-up in treated cancer patients.
Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient-initiated follow-up in surgical specialties: meta-analysis and meta-regression.BJS open · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient-initiated follow-up after cancer.Cancer medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic review of patients' and healthcare professionals' views on patient-initiated follow-up in treated cancer patients.Cancer medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Nurses' and Physicians' Experiences With Digital Remote Patient Monitoring-Transforming the Boundaries of Breast Cancer Care.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Digital Patient-Controlled Follow-Up in Palliative Cancer Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- The mirrored burden and accountable handovers in cancer survivorship: co‑designing a post‑treatment transition standard.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Patients' preferences for follow-up after endometrial cancer surgery.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Telemedicine follow-up for pre-malignant and malignant glottic lesions: a randomised controlled trial study protocol comparing care close to home versus standard of care.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- Article
- Surveillance imaging: minimal evidence and forgotten harms.BMJ oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent follow-up models in cancer are seen to be unsustainable and inflexible, and there is growing interest in alternative models, such as patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU). It is therefore important to understand whether PIFU is acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs).
methodsStandard systematic review methodology aimed at limiting bias was used for study identification (to January 2022), selection and data extraction. Thematic synthesis was undertaken for qualitative data, and survey findings were tabulated and described.
resultsNine qualitative studies and 22 surveys were included, mainly in breast and endometrial cancer. Women treated for breast or endometrial cancer and HCPs were mostly supportive of PIFU. Facilitators for PIFU included convenience, control over own health and avoidance of anxiety-inducing clinic appointments. Barriers included loss of reassurance from scheduled visits and lack of confidence in self-management. HCPs were supportive of PIFU but concerned about resistance to change, unsuitability of PIFU for some patients and costs.
conclusionPIFU is viewed mostly positively by women treated for breast or endometrial cancer, and by HCPs, but further evidence is needed from a wider range of cancers, men, and more representative samples. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181412).
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.