Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39752659›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Optimizing Virtual Follow-Up Care: Realist Evaluation of Experiences and Perspectives of Patients With Breast and Prostate Cancer.

Sarah Scruton, Geoff Wong, Stephanie Babinski, Lauren R Squires, Alejandro Berlin, Julie Easley, Sharon McGee, Ken Noel, Danielle Rodin, Jonathan Sussman and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Equity-Centered Optimization of Virtual Cancer Survivorship Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
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

12 authors.

Sarah ScrutonCancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1260-2043
Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5384-4157
Stephanie BabinskiCancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5623-8542
Lauren R SquiresCancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6428-4466
Alejandro BerlinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1880-6905
Julie EasleyDepartment of Medical Education, Dr Everett Chalmers Regional Hospital, Horizon Health Network, Fredericton, NB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1711-1343
Sharon McGeeDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital and the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0323-6372
Ken NoelThe Walnut Foundation, Brampton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0455-2297
Danielle RodinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8279-0621
Jonathan SussmanDepartment of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7702-8816
Robin UrquhartDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8864-5716
Jacqueline L BenderCancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1501-335X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVirtual follow-up (VFU) has the potential to enhance cancer survivorship care. However, a greater understanding is needed of how VFU can be optimized.

objectiveThis study aims to examine how, for whom, and in what contexts VFU works for cancer survivorship care.

methodsWe conducted a realist evaluation of VFU among patients with breast cancer and prostate cancer at an urban cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic. Realist evaluations examine how underlying causal processes of an intervention (mechanisms) in specific circumstances (contexts) interact to produce results (outcomes). Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of patients ≤5 years after diagnosis. Interviews were audio-recorded and analyzed using a realist logic of analysis.

resultsParticipants (N=24; n=12, 50% with breast cancer and n=12, 50% with prostate cancer) had an average age of 59.6 (SD 10.7) years. Most participants (20/24, 83%) were satisfied with VFU and wanted VFU options to continue after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, VFU impacted patient perceptions of the quality of their care, particularly in terms of its effectiveness and patient centeredness. Whether VFU worked well for patients depended on patient factors (eg, needs, psychosocial well-being, and technological competence), care provider factors (eg, socioemotional behaviors and technological competence), and virtual care system factors (eg, modality, functionality, usability, virtual process of care, and communication workflows). Key mechanisms that interacted with contexts to produce positive outcomes (eg, satisfaction) were visual cues, effective and empathetic communication, and a trusting relationship with their provider.

conclusionsPatients value VFU; however, VFU is not working as well as it could for patients. To optimize VFU, it is critical to consider contexts and mechanisms that impact patient perceptions of the patient centeredness and effectiveness of their care. Offering patients the choice of in-person, telephone, or video visits when possible, coupled with streamlined access to in-person care when required, is important. Prioritizing and addressing patient needs; enhancing physician virtual socioemotional behaviors and technology competency; and enhancing VFU functionality, usability, and processes of care and communication workflows will improve patient perceptions of the patient centeredness and effectiveness of virtual care.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCOVID-19Prostatic NeoplasmsTelemedicineAgedCancer SurvivorsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionSARS-CoV-2cancerfollow-upoutcomesrealist evaluationsurvivorshipvirtual

Identifiers

PMID39752659
PMCPMC11748426

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.