» Articles » PMID: 35172743

Delivering Colon Cancer Survivorship Care in Primary Care; a Qualitative Study on the Experiences of General Practitioners

Overview
Journal BMC Prim Care
Date 2022 Feb 17
PMID 35172743
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: With more patients in need of oncological care, there is a growing interest to transfer survivorship care from specialist to general practitioner (GP). The ongoing I CARE study was initiated in 2015 in the Netherlands to compare (usual) surgeon- to GP-led survivorship care, with or without access to a supporting eHealth application (Oncokompas).

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were held at two separate points in time (i.e. after 1- and 5-years of care) to explore GPs' experiences with delivering this survivorship care intervention, and study its implementation into daily practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 GPs. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework.

Results: Overall, delivering survivorship care was not deemed difficult and dealing with cancer repercussions was already considered part of a GPs' work. Though GPs readily identified advantages for patients, caregivers and society, differences were seen in GPs' commitment to the intervention and whether it felt right for them to be involved. Patients' initiative with respect to planning, absence of symptoms and regular check-ups due to other chronic care were considered to facilitate the delivery of care. Prominent barriers included GPs' lack of experience and routine, but also lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for organising care. Need for a monitoring system was often mentioned to reduce the risk of non-compliance. GPs were reticent about a possible future transfer of survivorship care towards primary care due to increases in workload and financial constraints. GPs were not aware of their patients' use of eHealth.

Conclusions: GPs' opinions and beliefs about a possible future role in colon cancer survivorship care vary. Though GPs recognize potential benefit, there is no consensus about transferring survivorship care to primary care on a permanent basis. Barriers and facilitators to implementation highlight the importance of both personal and system level factors. Conditions are put forth relating to time, reorganisation of infrastructure, extra personnel and financial compensation.

Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register; NTR4860 . Registered on the 2nd of October 2014.

Citing Articles

SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer.

Jefford M, Emery J, Martin A, De Abreu Lourenco R, Lisy K, Grunfeld E EClinicalMedicine. 2023; 66:102346.

PMID: 38094163 PMC: 10716007. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102346.


Supporting translation of research evidence into practice-the use of Normalisation Process Theory to assess and inform implementation within randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

Williams A, Lennox L, Harris M, Antonacci G Implement Sci. 2023; 18(1):55.

PMID: 37891671 PMC: 10612208. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-023-01311-1.


Primary care physicians' knowledge and confidence in providing cancer survivorship care: a systematic review.

Vos J, Wollersheim B, Cooke A, Ee C, Chan R, Nekhlyudov L J Cancer Surviv. 2023; 18(5):1557-1573.

PMID: 37171716 PMC: 11424677. DOI: 10.1007/s11764-023-01397-y.


Cost-effectiveness of general practitioner- versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

Vos J, El Alili M, Duineveld L, Wieldraaijer T, Wind J, Sert E J Cancer Surviv. 2023; 18(4):1393-1402.

PMID: 37097550 PMC: 11324670. DOI: 10.1007/s11764-023-01383-4.


Detection of colon cancer recurrences during follow-up care by general practitioners vs surgeons.

Vos J, Sert E, Busschers W, Duineveld L, Wieldraaijer T, Wind J J Natl Cancer Inst. 2023; 115(5):523-529.

PMID: 36715623 PMC: 10165489. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djad019.

References
1.
Tuinman M, Gazendam-Donofrio S, Hoekstra-Weebers J . Screening and referral for psychosocial distress in oncologic practice: use of the Distress Thermometer. Cancer. 2008; 113(4):870-8. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23622. View

2.
Duineveld L, Wieldraaijer T, van Asselt K, Nugteren I, Donkervoort S, van de Ven A . Improving care after colon cancer treatment in The Netherlands, personalised care to enhance quality of life (I CARE study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2015; 16:284. PMC: 4499213. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0798-7. View

3.
Huddlestone L, Turner J, Eborall H, Hudson N, Davies M, Martin G . Application of normalisation process theory in understanding implementation processes in primary care settings in the UK: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract. 2020; 21(1):52. PMC: 7075013. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-020-01107-y. View

4.
Meiklejohn J, Mimery A, Martin J, Bailie R, Garvey G, Walpole E . The role of the GP in follow-up cancer care: a systematic literature review. J Cancer Surviv. 2016; 10(6):990-1011. DOI: 10.1007/s11764-016-0545-4. View

5.
May C, Cummings A, Girling M, Bracher M, Mair F, May C . Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(1):80. PMC: 5992634. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1. View