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.
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.
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: Laura P Forsythe; Catherine M Alfano; Corinne R Leach; Patricia A Ganz; Michael E Stefanek; Julia H Rowland Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tenbroeck G Smith; Sara Strollo; Xin Hu; Craig C Earle; Corinne R Leach; Larissa Nekhlyudov Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ruth A Lewis; Richard D Neal; Nefyn H Williams; Barbara France; Maggie Hendry; 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: Deborah K Mayer; Adrian Gerstel; Annmarie Lee Walton; Tammy Triglianos; Teresa E Sadiq; Nikki A Hawkins; Janine M Davies Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: J Y Y Kwan; J Croke; T Panzarella; K Ubhi; A Fyles; A Koch; R Dinniwell; W Levin; D McCready; C Chung; F Liu; J L Bender Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Marie-Eve Rouge-Bugat; Donia Lassoued; Joy Bacrie; Nathalie Boussier; Jean-Pierre Delord; Stéphane Oustric; Eric Bauvin; Maryse Lapeyre-Mestre; François Bertucci; Pascale Grosclaude Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lauren Matheson; Mary Boulton; Verna Lavender; Andrew Protheroe; Sue Brand; Marta Wanat; Eila Watson Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 4.442