SynthesisThe patient2025
Preferences of Cancer Survivors for Follow-Up Care: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.
Synthesis in The patient, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The invisible wall: experiences of social isolation in colorectal cancer patients with ostomy-a qualitative meta-synthesis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveCancer survivors frequently encounter multiple challenges, including physical, psychological, social, emotional, and financial difficulties. These challenges significantly impact their quality of life and recovery process. This systematic review intends to delineate and assess the evidence gathered from discrete choice experiments, aiming to unravel the preferences of cancer survivors towards their follow-up care.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CNKI, Wanfang, and SinoMed databases up to July 2024. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal of the studies. The collected data were synthesized through a narrative approach. Additionally, semi-quantitative analyses were used to evaluate the frequency, importance, and significance of each attribute.
resultsEight studies conducted across four countries were analyzed, yielding 41 distinct attributes grouped into eight main categories and 14 subcategories, further refined by subject matter. Despite the differences in payment systems between countries, the type of provider topped the list of preferences for cancer survivors' follow-up care. Next in preference was the contact modality. Service quality (comprehensive plans, personalized service, detailed information) was also valued. However, opinions diverged on continuity, additional support, and service frequency.
conclusionsThe attributes of follow-up care preferences integrated in this review demonstrate a diverse range among cancer survivors. Generally, they prioritize skilled professionals, flexible contact modality, and other high-quality follow-up care elements. Future studies should analyze cancer survivors' preferences for follow-up care from the perspectives of different stakeholders, and further consider internal and external factors to ensure authentic decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39482547What 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.