Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40048096›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2026

Organizing substitution of oncological follow-up to primary care: perspectives from secondary care providers.

Geertje B Liemburg, Joke C Korevaar, Annette J Berendsen, Marjolein Y Berger, Daan Brandenbarg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 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
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.

Geertje B LiemburgDepartment of Primary and Long-Term Care, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 196, Groningen, 9700 AD, the Netherlands. g.b.liemburg@umcg.nl.
Joke C KorevaarNIVEL Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Annette J BerendsenDepartment of Primary and Long-Term Care, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 196, Groningen, 9700 AD, the Netherlands.
Marjolein Y BergerDepartment of Primary and Long-Term Care, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 196, Groningen, 9700 AD, the Netherlands.
Daan BrandenbargDepartment of Primary and Long-Term Care, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 196, Groningen, 9700 AD, the Netherlands.

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding 11062, 2017-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe increasing number of cancer survivors has heightened demands on hospital-based follow-up care resources. To address this, involving general practitioners (GPs) in oncological follow-up is proposed. This study explores secondary care providers' views on integrating GPs into follow-up care for curatively treated breast and colorectal cancer survivors.

methodsA qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with Dutch medical specialists and nurse practitioners. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis by two independent researchers.

resultsFifteen medical specialists and nine nurse practitioners participated. They identified barriers such as re-referral delays, inexperience to perform structured follow-up, and worries about the lack of oncological knowledge among GPs. Benefits included the GPs' accessibility and their contextual knowledge. For future organization, they emphasized the need for hospital logistics changes, formal GP training, sufficient case-load, proper staffing, remuneration, and time allocation. They suggested that formal GP involvement should initially be implemented for frail older patients and for prevalent cancer types.

conclusionsThe interviewed Dutch secondary care providers generally supported formal involvement of primary care in cancer follow-up. A well-organized shared-care model with defined roles and clear coordination, supported by individual patients, was considered essential. This approach requires logistics adaptation, resources, and training for GPs. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Integrating oncological follow-up into routine primary care through a shared-care model may lead to personalized, effective, and efficient care for survivors because of their long-term relationships with GPs.

Indexed as

AftercareBreast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsColorectal NeoplasmsPrimary Health CareSecondary Health CareContinuity of Patient CareFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleNetherlandsQualitative ResearchBreast cancerColorectal cancerFollow-upGeneral practitionerQualitative researchShared care

Identifiers

PMID40048096
PMCPMC13375917

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.