» Articles » PMID: 19566991

Patients' and Healthcare Professionals' Views of Cancer Follow-up: Systematic Review

Overview
Journal Br J Gen Pract
Specialty Public Health
Date 2009 Jul 2
PMID 19566991
Citations 56
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Cancer follow-up places a significant burden on hospital outpatient clinics. There are increasing calls to develop alternative models of provision.

Aim: To undertake a systematic review of qualitative studies examining patients' and healthcare professionals' views about cancer follow-up.

Design Of Study: Systematic review.

Setting: Primary and secondary care.

Method: Comprehensive literature searches included: 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of included studies. Eligible studies included qualitative studies examining patients' and healthcare professionals' views of cancer follow-up. Studies of patients with any type of cancer, considered free of active disease, or no longer receiving active treatment were included. Findings were synthesised using thematic analysis.

Results: Nineteen studies were included; seven were linked to randomised controlled trials. Eight studies examined the views of healthcare professionals (four of which included GPs) and 16 examined the views of patients. Twelve descriptive themes were identified, from which 12 perceived implications for practice were derived. Most themes related to conventional follow-up in secondary care. Some views concerning other models of care were based on participants' ideas, rather than experiences.

Conclusion: Patients' main concern is recurrent disease, and they find regular follow-up, expertise of specialists, and quick access to tests reassuring. Information regarding the effectiveness of follow-up is not given to patients who also have unmet information needs, which would help them to cope and be more involved. Continuity of care, unhurried consultations, and psychosocial support are important, but sometimes lacking in secondary care. GPs are thought to be unwilling and to have insufficient time and expertise to conduct follow-up.

Citing Articles

Prediction accuracy of discrete choice experiments in health-related research: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhang Y, Ho T, Terris-Prestholt F, Quaife M, De Bekker-Grob E, Vickerman P EClinicalMedicine. 2025; 79():102965.

PMID: 39791109 PMC: 11714376. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102965.


Nutritional literacy of patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer based on Nutbeam's health literacy model: a qualitative study.

Fu Y, Yan X, Zhao Y, Gu C, Kan Z, Yan L Support Care Cancer. 2024; 32(10):707.

PMID: 39373890 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08913-5.


Recurrent cervical cancer detection using DNA methylation markers in self-collected samples from home.

Schaafsma M, van den Helder R, Mom C, Steenbergen R, Bleeker M, van Trommel N Int J Cancer. 2024; 156(3):659-667.

PMID: 39175103 PMC: 11621989. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.35143.


Is it legitimate to use unplanned hospitalizations as a quality indicator for cancer patients? A retrospective French cohort study with special attention to the influence of social deprivation.

Vermeulin T, Froment L, Merle V, Dormont B Support Care Cancer. 2024; 32(7):433.

PMID: 38874658 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08644-7.


Content and Duration of Doctor-Patient Communication in Outpatient Oncology Follow-Up Consultations in China.

Zhan Y, Mao P, Gao F, Shi Q Cureus. 2024; 16(3):e55597.

PMID: 38590457 PMC: 11000034. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.55597.


References
1.
Cox K, Wilson E, Heath L, Collier J, Jones L, Johnston I . Preferences for follow-up after treatment for lung cancer: assessing the nurse-led option. Cancer Nurs. 2006; 29(3):176-87. DOI: 10.1097/00002820-200605000-00003. View

2.
Botteman M, Pashos C, Redaelli A, Laskin B, Hauser R . The health economics of bladder cancer: a comprehensive review of the published literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004; 21(18):1315-30. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262330. View

3.
Lewis R, Neal R, Williams N, France B, Wilkinson C, Hendry M . Nurse-led vs. conventional physician-led follow-up for patients with cancer: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2009; 65(4):706-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04927.x. View

4.
Wood M, McWilliam C . Cancer in remission. Challenge in collaboration for family physicians and oncologists. Can Fam Physician. 1996; 42:899-904; 907-10. PMC: 2146378. View

5.
Lewis R, Neal R, Williams N, France B, Hendry M, Russell D . Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2009; 59(564):e234-47. PMC: 2702037. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp09X453567. View