INTRODUCTION: Follow-up to detect recurrence is an important feature of care after colon cancer treatment. Currently, follow-up visits are surgeon-led with focus on recurrence. To date, there is increasing interest for general practitioners (GPs) providing this care, as GPs might provide more holistic care. The present study assessed how surgeons, GPs, and patients evaluate current surgeon-led colon cancer follow-up and to list their views on possible future GP-led follow-up. METHODS: The study consists of a cross-sectional survey including colorectal surgeons, patients who participate or recently finished a follow-up programme, and GPs in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Eighty-seven out of 191 GPs, 113 out of 238 surgeons, and 186 out of 243 patients responded. Patients are satisfied about current surgeon-led follow-up, especially about recurrence detection and identification of physical problems (94% and 85% respectively). However, only 56% and 49% of the patients were satisfied about the identification of psychological and social problems respectively. Only 16% of the patients evaluated future GP-led follow-up positively. Regarding healthcare providers, surgeons were more positive compared to GPs; 49% of the surgeons, and only 30% of the GPs evaluated future GP-led follow-up positively (P = 0.002). Furthermore, several reservations and principle requirements for GP-led follow-up were identified. DISCUSSION: The results suggest an unfavourable view among patients and healthcare providers, especially GPs, regarding a central role for GPs in colon cancer follow-up. However, low satisfaction on psychosocial aspects in current follow-up points out a lack in care. Therefore, the results provide a justification to explore future GP-led care further.
INTRODUCTION: Follow-up to detect recurrence is an important feature of care after colon cancer treatment. Currently, follow-up visits are surgeon-led with focus on recurrence. To date, there is increasing interest for general practitioners (GPs) providing this care, as GPs might provide more holistic care. The present study assessed how surgeons, GPs, and patients evaluate current surgeon-led colon cancer follow-up and to list their views on possible future GP-led follow-up. METHODS: The study consists of a cross-sectional survey including colorectal surgeons, patients who participate or recently finished a follow-up programme, and GPs in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Eighty-seven out of 191 GPs, 113 out of 238 surgeons, and 186 out of 243 patients responded. Patients are satisfied about current surgeon-led follow-up, especially about recurrence detection and identification of physical problems (94% and 85% respectively). However, only 56% and 49% of the patients were satisfied about the identification of psychological and social problems respectively. Only 16% of the patients evaluated future GP-led follow-up positively. Regarding healthcare providers, surgeons were more positive compared to GPs; 49% of the surgeons, and only 30% of the GPs evaluated future GP-led follow-up positively (P = 0.002). Furthermore, several reservations and principle requirements for GP-led follow-up were identified. DISCUSSION: The results suggest an unfavourable view among patients and healthcare providers, especially GPs, regarding a central role for GPs in colon cancer follow-up. However, low satisfaction on psychosocial aspects in current follow-up points out a lack in care. Therefore, the results provide a justification to explore future GP-led care further.
Authors: Julia R Berian; Amanda Cuddy; Amanda B Francescatti; Linda O'Dwyer; Y Nancy You; Robert J Volk; George J Chang Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Martien J P van Bussel; Gaby J Odekerken-Schröder; Carol Ou; Rachelle R Swart; Maria J G Jacobs Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-07-09 Impact factor: 2.908
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
Authors: Thijs Wieldraaijer; Pascal Bruin; Laura A M Duineveld; Pieter J Tanis; Anke B Smits; Henk C P M van Weert; Jan Wind Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Laura A M Duineveld; Thijs Wieldraaijer; Kristel M van Asselt; Ineke C Nugteren; Sandra C Donkervoort; Anthony W H van de Ven; Anke B Smits; Anna A W van Geloven; Willem A Bemelman; Frederique H Beverdam; Willem F van Tets; Marc J P M Govaert; Judith E Bosmans; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Henk C P M van Weert; Jan Wind Journal: Trials Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Laura A M Duineveld; Thijs Wieldraaijer; Jan Wind; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Henk C P M van Weert; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: T Wieldraaijer; L A M Duineveld; S C Donkervoort; W B Busschers; H C P M van Weert; J Wind Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 2.581