Patients' and healthcare professionals' views of cancer follow-up: systematic review

作者: Ruth A Lewis , Richard D Neal , Maggie Hendry , Barbara France , Nefyn H Williams

DOI: 10.3399/BJGP09X453576

关键词:

摘要: 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 systematic review qualitative studies examining patients' and healthcare professionals' views about cancer follow-up. Design study Systematic review. Setting Primary secondary care. Method Comprehensive literature searches included: 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, bibliographies included studies. Eligible Studies patients with any type cancer, considered free active disease, or no longer receiving treatment were included. Findings synthesised using thematic analysis. Results Nineteen included; seven linked randomised controlled trials. Eight examined the professionals (four which GPs) 16 patients. Twelve descriptive themes identified, from 12 perceived implications for practice derived. Most related conventional in Some concerning other care based participants' ideas, rather than experiences. Conclusion Patients' main concern is recurrent they find regular follow-up, expertise specialists, quick access tests reassuring. Information regarding effectiveness not given who also have unmet information needs, would help them cope be more involved. Continuity care, unhurried consultations, psychosocial support important, but sometimes lacking GPs thought unwilling insufficient time conduct

参考文章(45)
C. L. McWilliam, M. L. Wood, Cancer in remission. Challenge in collaboration for family physicians and oncologists. Canadian Family Physician. ,vol. 42, pp. 899- ,(1996)
B Johansson, L Holmberg, G Berglund, Y Brandberg, M Hellbom, C Persson, B Glimelius, P.-O Sjödén, Reduced utilisation of specialist care among elderly cancer patients: a randomised study of a primary healthcare intervention. European Journal of Cancer. ,vol. 37, pp. 2161- 2168 ,(2001) , 10.1016/S0959-8049(01)00278-7
Marc F. Botteman, Chris L. Pashos, Alberto Redaelli, Benjamin Laskin, Robert Hauser, The health economics of bladder cancer PharmacoEconomics. ,vol. 21, pp. 1315- 1330 ,(2003) , 10.1007/BF03262330
Jennie Popay, Nicholas Mays, Catherine Pope, Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative health evidence: a guide to methods Open University Press. ,(2007)
Lucy Dillon, Liz Spencer, Jane Lewis, Jane Ritchie, Quality in qualitative evaluation : a framework for assessing research evidence Cabinet Office. ,(2003)
CA Hughes, J Connolley, Breast cancer follow-up: a focus group and interview study. Breast Cancer Research. ,vol. 8, pp. 40- ,(2006) , 10.1186/BCR1595
Mary Dixon-Woods, Sheila Bonas, Andrew Booth, David R. Jones, Tina Miller, Alex J. Sutton, Rachel L. Shaw, Jonathan A. Smith, Bridget Young, How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective: Qualitative Research. ,vol. 6, pp. 27- 44 ,(2006) , 10.1177/1468794106058867
Alpa V. Patel, Michael F. Press, Kathleen Meeske, Eugenia E. Calle, Leslie Bernstein, Lifetime recreational exercise activity and risk of breast carcinoma in situ. Cancer. ,vol. 98, pp. 2161- 2169 ,(2003) , 10.1002/CNCR.11768
Donna Kam Pun Wong, Sau Fong Chow, A qualitative study of patient satisfaction with follow-up cancer care: the case of Hong Kong. Patient Education and Counseling. ,vol. 47, pp. 13- 21 ,(2002) , 10.1016/S0738-3991(01)00168-9