Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39621954›Full record

ArticleJCO oncology practice2025

General Practitioners' Experiences With Implementing Colon or Prostate Cancer Survivorship Care in Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey Nested Within Two Randomized-Controlled Trials.

Julien A M Vos, Barbara M Wollersheim, Henk C P M van Weert, Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse, Kristel M van Asselt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO oncology practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Preferences of healthcare providers regarding future follow-up care for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer: A discrete choice experiment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
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

5 authors.

Julien A M VosAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3383-8171
Barbara M WollersheimDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5145-9618
Henk C P M van WeertAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6370-4724
Lonneke V van de Poll-FranseDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0413-6872
Kristel M van AsseltAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate general practitioners' (GPs) experiences with providing cancer survivorship care and explore readiness for implementation.

methodsThis cross-sectional survey study was nested within two randomized-controlled trials conducted in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2023, comparing GP- with specialist-led survivorship care for patients with colon or prostate cancer. An adapted version of the normalisation measure development (NoMAD) survey was distributed among participating GPs. NoMAD assesses the implementation of complex interventions and includes seven items on experiences (score ranges, 0-10) and 19 core items (expressed as % agreement). Higher scores indicate greater normalization, that is, embedding in primary care.

resultsIn total, 214 GPs participated (response rate, 69%). The overall experience with providing survivorship care was 7.0 ± 1.6 for prostate cancer and 6.4 ± 1.8 for colon cancer. Lowest scores were seen for willingness to provide care (5.9 ± 2.4 and 5.0 ± 2.5, respectively), expected future involvement (6.6 ± 2.0 and 5.6 ± 2.5), and appropriateness of involvement (6.4 ± 2.1 and 5.6 ± 2.7). GPs in both trials agreed (±75%) there was potential value for patients, but not for their own work (±50%). Survivorship care for colon cancer was often perceived as different from usual care (74%). GPs' self-reported knowledge of care was high in the prostate cancer trial (62%), but not in the colon cancer trial (41%). GPs from both trials agreed that they could easily integrate management of physical and psychosocial effects into their work (±70%), but integrating routine check-ups was rated less positively (±55%). Financial compensation was deemed necessary (±80% agreed). Twenty-one percent was willing to provide care for other cancer types.

conclusionGPs recognize value of providing survivorship care for patients, but experiences differ on the basis of cancer type. Implementation of prostate versus colon cancer survivorship care appears more feasible.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsColonic NeoplasmsGeneral PractitionersPrimary Health CareProstatic NeoplasmsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID39621954
PMCPMC12173168

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.