ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2024
Strategies for General Practitioners to Enhance Cancer Care: Insights from a Patient-Centered Questionnaire Survey in Southern China.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Determinants of Chemotherapy Convenience and Satisfaction: The Role of Symptom and Psychological Burden in Cancer Patients-A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- How GPs Help Patients Reorient After Cancer News.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
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
Background: The incidence of cancer is increasing, and cancer survivors are also growing exponentially. Cancer is defined as a new chronic disease. Nevertheless, the management of cancer in the form of chronic diseases in China is still in its infancy, without a standardized care model. Objective: This study aimed to explore the current status of management of cancer care from the patient's perspective. Methods: This cross-sectional study was a questionnaire survey of patients diagnosed with cancer, including information of the current situation of daily medical consultation, status of comorbidity, and expectations of seeking cancer care in future. Chi-square test and logistic regression analysis were used to explore the factors influencing patients' choice of cancer management mode. Results: A total of 200 cancer patients were included in the study. The majority (n = 150) of cancer patients chose an oncologist in a tertiary hospital for cancer care. Difficulty in registration (45%), time-consuming (34.5%), repeated examinations (34.5%) and different treatment opinions (12.0%) were the main difficulties they encountered currently during tertiary hospital visits. In community hospital, lack of trust in general practitioners (n = 33) and the necessary drugs or testing items in community hospitals (n = 47) were the main difficulties during their visits. Logistic regression analysis showed that male (OR = 2.737, 95% CI, 1.332-5.627, p = 0.006) and elderly patients (OR = 3.186, 95% CI, 1.172-8.661, p = 0.023) were more likely to choose general practitioners (GPs) in community hospitals. Twenty-nine (14.5%) patients hope to have an integrated multidisciplinary management in tertiary and community hospitals with the active participation of GPs for cancer care. Conclusion: Improving drug availability, equipment and quality of cancer care services can help to increase cancer patients' recognition of community hospital. In addition, the multidisciplinary management integrated tertiary hospitals and communities with the participation of GPs is a worth exploring mode that improves the management of cancer care.
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.