Literature DB >> 28188361

The role of the general practitioner in cancer care: a survey of the patients' perspective.

V Lang1, S Walter2, J Fessler3, M J Koester1, D Ruetters1, J Huebner4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Modern cancer care is provided in highly specialized structures as certificated centres and comprehensive cancer center, as well as specialized practices. In contrast, the position of the general practitioner (GP) is less well characterised and there is a lack of information about his importance in the care for cancer patients. The aim of our survey was to assess the role of GPs in German cancer care from patients' perspective.
METHODS: In several steps we developed a standardized anonymous questionnaire in cooperation with the German Association of General Practitioners and the Federal Association of German Self-Help Groups. This questionnaire was used in a print and an online version and distributed by the self-help organizations to their members.
RESULTS: Seven hundred and forty participants took part in the survey, 66.5% women and 30.1% men. 71% had visited the GP during cancer therapy and 34.5% discussed decisions concerning diagnostics and therapy with him. The most relevant reasons to visit the GP during cancer therapy were to get a blood test (63.3%), comorbidities (42.7%) and complaints and side effects (38.3%). For the latter, most often a detailed discussion ensued (57%), fooled by a prescription (37.7%). In 63.4% the GP offered support when patients had some questions or worries concerning their cancer. Yet, 17% of the patients reported that the GP did not try to help. 85.5% of the participants thought that it is important that their GP is informed about the therapy on a regular basis. For 77.0%, a simultaneous care provided by the GP is important or very important.
CONCLUSION: Our survey points to the importance of the GP during cancer therapy from the patient's point of view. Patients want their GP to take an active part in the cancer therapy. Furthermore, early integration of the GP may also enhance early integration of palliative care and also help family members and caregivers. A strategy to integrate GPs is the establishment of shared care models, in which GPs are supported by specialists and get additional training in cancer care.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer care; Comorbidities; General practitioner; Patient; Shared care; Side effects

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28188361     DOI: 10.1007/s00432-017-2343-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0171-5216            Impact factor:   4.553


  35 in total

1.  Couples' patterns of adjustment to colon cancer.

Authors:  L L Northouse; D Mood; T Templin; S Mellon; T George
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Primary care management of women with breast cancer-related concerns-a dynamic cohort study using a network database.

Authors:  A Sollie; C W Helsper; R J M Ader; M G E M Ausems; J C van der Wouden; M E Numans
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 2.520

3.  Toward shared care for people with cancer: developing the model with patients and GPs.

Authors:  Susan J Hall; Leslie M Samuel; Peter Murchie
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 2.267

4.  The relationship between available support, unmet needs and caregiver burden in patients with advanced cancer and their carers.

Authors:  Louise Sharpe; Phyllis Butow; Claire Smith; David McConnell; Stephen Clarke
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.894

5.  Disease stage and psychosocial outcomes in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  A E Simon; M R Thompson; K Flashman; J Wardle
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2008-03-18       Impact factor: 3.788

6.  Prostate cancer patients' report on communication about endocrine therapy and its association with adherence.

Authors:  B Jung; C Stoll; G Feick; F J Prott; J Zell; I Rudolph; J Huebner
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.553

7.  Role of the general practitioner during the active breast cancer treatment phase: an analysis of health care use.

Authors:  Carriene Roorda; Geertruida H de Bock; Willem Jan van der Veen; Annemarie Lindeman; Liesbeth Jansen; Klaas van der Meer
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2011-03-25       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Preparing general practitioners to receive cancer patients following treatment in secondary care: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Ann Dorrit Guassora; Lene Jarlbaek; Thorkil Thorsen
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  How do general practitioners manage patients with cancer symptoms? A video-vignette study.

Authors:  Moyez Jiwa; Xingqiong Meng; Carolyn O'Shea; Parker Magin; Ann Dadich; Vinita Pillai
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  General practitioners' attitudes toward follow-up after cancer treatment: A cross-sectional questionnaire study.

Authors:  Heidi Lidal Fidjeland; Mette Brekke; Ingvild Vistad
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 2.581

View more
  9 in total

1.  Decision-making by cancer patients and the role of a counselling facility for complementary and alternative medicine: a cohort study.

Authors:  Lena Josfeld; Jutta Hübner; Vanessa Hack; Christian Keinki; Jens Büntzel
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 4.322

2.  How can counselling by family physicians on nutrition and physical activity be improved: trends from a survey in Germany.

Authors:  S J Boesenecker; V Mathies; J Buentzel; J Huebner
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 4.322

3.  Surgical breast cancer patient pathway: Experiences of patients and relatives and their unmet needs.

Authors:  Ingrid Annette Zøylner; Kirsten Lomborg; Peer Michael Christiansen; Pia Kirkegaard
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2019-01-12       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Lung cancer patients' comorbidities and attendance of German ambulatory physicians in a 5-year cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Jasmin Bossert; Marion Ludwig; Pamela Wronski; Jan Koetsenruijter; Katja Krug; Matthias Villalobos; Josephine Jacob; Jochen Walker; Michael Thomas; Michel Wensing
Journal:  NPJ Prim Care Respir Med       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 2.871

5.  Has the National Fall in Smoking Rates in Ireland Been Replicated in Cancer Patients? A 5-Year Report.

Authors:  Patricia Fitzpatrick; Nancy Bhardwaj; Ailsa Lyons; Kirsten Doherty; Kate Frazer; Amanda McCann; Vikram Niranjan; Shiraz Syed; Patricia Fox
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Factors influencing the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice: a systematic review.

Authors:  Tiffany Sandell; Heike Schütze
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 3.006

7.  Roles of general practitioners in shared decision-making for patients with cancer: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Inger L Abma; Lianne C G Roelofs; Marion B van der Kolk; Sasja F Mulder; Henk J Schers; Rosella P M G Hermens; Philip J van der Wees
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 2.328

8.  Improving communication between the general practitioner and the oncologist: a key role in coordinating care for patients suffering from cancer.

Authors:  Vladimir Druel; Laetitia Gimenez; Kim Paricaud; Jean-Pierre Delord; Pascale Grosclaude; Nathalie Boussier; Marie-Eve Rougé Bugat
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  What patients with lung cancer with comorbidity tell us about interprofessional collaborative care across healthcare sectors: qualitative interview study.

Authors:  Jasmin Bossert; Johanna Forstner; Matthias Villalobos; Anja Siegle; Corinna Jung; Nicole Deis; Michael Thomas; Michel Wensing; Katja Krug
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-08-04       Impact factor: 2.692

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.