BACKGROUND: Cancer follow-up has traditionally been undertaken in secondary care, but there are increasing calls to deliver it in primary care. AIM: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary care follow-up of cancer patients, determine the effectiveness of the integration of primary care in routine hospital follow-up, and evaluate the impact of patient-initiated follow-up on primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review. SETTING: Primary and secondary care settings. METHOD: A search was carried out of 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of included studies. The review included comparative studies or economic evaluations of primary versus secondary care follow-up, hospital follow-up with formal primary care involvement versus conventional hospital follow-up, and hospital follow-up versus patient-initiated or minimal follow-up if the study reported the impact on primary care. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference for patient wellbeing, recurrence rate, survival, recurrence-related serious clinical events, diagnostic delay, or patient satisfaction. GP-led breast cancer follow-up was cheaper than hospital follow-up. Intensified primary health care resulted in increased home-care nurse contact, and improved discharge summary led to increased GP contact. Evaluation of patient-initiated or minimal follow-up found no statistically significant impact on the number of GP consultations or cancer-related referrals. CONCLUSION: Weak evidence suggests that breast cancer follow-up in primary care is effective. Interventions improving communication between primary and secondary care could lead to greater GP involvement. Discontinuation of formal follow-up may not increase GP workload. However, the quality of the data in general was poor, and no firm conclusions can be reached.
BACKGROUND:Cancer follow-up has traditionally been undertaken in secondary care, but there are increasing calls to deliver it in primary care. AIM: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary care follow-up of cancerpatients, determine the effectiveness of the integration of primary care in routine hospital follow-up, and evaluate the impact of patient-initiated follow-up on primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review. SETTING: Primary and secondary care settings. METHOD: A search was carried out of 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of included studies. The review included comparative studies or economic evaluations of primary versus secondary care follow-up, hospital follow-up with formal primary care involvement versus conventional hospital follow-up, and hospital follow-up versus patient-initiated or minimal follow-up if the study reported the impact on primary care. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference for patient wellbeing, recurrence rate, survival, recurrence-related serious clinical events, diagnostic delay, or patient satisfaction. GP-led breast cancer follow-up was cheaper than hospital follow-up. Intensified primary health care resulted in increased home-care nurse contact, and improved discharge summary led to increased GP contact. Evaluation of patient-initiated or minimal follow-up found no statistically significant impact on the number of GP consultations or cancer-related referrals. CONCLUSION: Weak evidence suggests that breast cancer follow-up in primary care is effective. Interventions improving communication between primary and secondary care could lead to greater GP involvement. Discontinuation of formal follow-up may not increase GP workload. However, the quality of the data in general was poor, and no firm conclusions can be reached.
Authors: Ruth Lewis; Richard D Neal; Nefyn H Williams; Barbara France; Clare Wilkinson; Maggie Hendry; Daphne Russell; Ian Russell; Dyfrig A Hughes; Nicholas S A Stuart; David Weller Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.187
Authors: Ruth A Lewis; Richard D Neal; Maggie Hendry; Barbara France; Nefyn H Williams; Daphne Russell; Dyfrig A Hughes; Ian Russell; Nicholas S A Stuart; David Weller; Clare Wilkinson Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: D Bossé; T Ng; C Ahmad; A Alfakeeh; I Alruzug; J Biagi; J Brierley; P Chaudhury; S Cleary; B Colwell; C Cripps; L A Dawson; M Dorreen; E Ferland; P Galiatsatos; S Girard; S Gray; F Halwani; N Kopek; A Mahmud; G Martel; L Robillard; B Samson; M Seal; J Siddiqui; L Sideris; S Snow; M Thirwell; M Vickers; R Goodwin; R Goel; T Hsu; E Tsvetkova; B Ward; T Asmis Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Elizabeth Palmer Kelly; J Madison Hyer; Amblessed E Onuma; Anghela Z Paredes; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Nicole P M Ezendam; Kim A H Nicolaije; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Johanna M A Pijnenborg; M Caroline Vos; Dorry Boll; Marjo van Bommel; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Rahul Garg; Usha Sambamoorthi; Xi Tan; Soumit K Basu; Treah Haggerty; Kimberly M Kelly Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Amblessed E Onuma; Elizabeth Palmer Kelly; Jeffery Chakedis; Anghela Z Paredes; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Brianne Wiemann; Morgan Johnson; Katiuscha Merath; Ozgur Akgul; Jordan Cloyd; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Surgery Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Judith A Meiklejohn; Alexander Mimery; Jennifer H Martin; Ross Bailie; Gail Garvey; Euan T Walpole; Jon Adams; Daniel Williamson; Patricia C Valery Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 4.442