ArticleBMC primary care2026
The role of general practitioners in German cancer care: a scoping review.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) play an important role in the care of patients with cancer across the entire cancer continuum, from diagnosis to palliative care. Despite their broad range of responsibilities, structures to facilitate the systematic involvement of GPs into cancer care remain insufficient in Germany. To date, the specific role and contribution of GPs within the German cancer care system have not been comprehensively synthesized.
objectiveThis scoping review aimed to summarize the available evidence on GP involvement in cancer care in Germany, including their roles across the cancer trajectory, collaboration with other healthcare providers, and barriers and needs affecting their participation in cancer care. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review was conducted according to Arksey & O'Malley. The search was conducted on 2 January 2024 in the databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. Eligible studies examined the role of GPs in the care of patients with cancer or long-term cancer survivors in Germany. Extracted review's domains (GPs' roles and responsibilities, collaboration, needs) were derived from an exploratory literature search and a GP advisory board. Findings were synthesized narratively. Studies published before 2008 were excluded.
resultsThe search yielded 646 hits, of which 71 could be included in the full-text screening and 24 in the data extraction. GPs are involved in all phases of cancer care, including diagnosis, active treatment, follow-up care, and palliative care. GPs as "persons of trust" and experts in counselling, provide patient-centered cancer care and emotional support. GPs collaborate with other healthcare providers, but are rarely involved in specific treatment decisions. Deficiencies in communication, information exchange, and role clarification were identified. GPs expressed a need for greater involvement and better information through informal, bidirectional communication with various stakeholders in the oncology healthcare sector. Evidence on GP involvement in survivorship care and the management of comorbidities in patients with cancer was limited.
conclusionsEfficient structures for information exchange and knowledge transfer between GPs and other healthcare providers may support continuous and comprehensive care for patients with cancer. Future guidelines should explicitly address the role of GPs and provide clear recommendations for their integration into cancer care pathways. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/T8XEN .
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.