Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cancer follow-up in primary care after treatment with curative intent: Views of patients with breast and colorectal cancer.
Liemburg, Geertje B; Korevaar, Joke C; Logtenberg, Mariëlle; Berendsen, Annette J; Berger, Marjolein Y; Brandenbarg, Daan.
Affiliation
  • Liemburg GB; Department of Primary and Long-term Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: g.b.liemburg@umcg.nl.
  • Korevaar JC; NIVEL Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
  • Logtenberg M; Department of Primary and Long-term Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
  • Berendsen AJ; Department of Primary and Long-term Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
  • Berger MY; Department of Primary and Long-term Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
  • Brandenbarg D; Department of Primary and Long-term Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Patient Educ Couns ; 122: 108139, 2024 May.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38232673
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Increased cancer survival leads to more patients requiring oncological follow-up. Debate about how best to coordinate this care has led to the proposed involvement of general practitioners (GPs) rather than continued reliance on hospital care. However, we still require patient opinions to inform this debate.

METHODS:

This qualitative interview study explored opinions about organization of follow-up care of patients treated curatively for breast and colorectal cancer. Thematic analysis was applied.

RESULTS:

We interviewed 29 patients and identified three themes concerning care substitution "benefits and barriers," "requirements," and "suitable patient groups." Benefits included accessibility, continuity, contextual knowledge, and psychosocial support. Barriers included concerns about cancer-specific expertise of GPs and longer waiting times. Requirements were sufficient time and remuneration, sufficient training, clear protocols, and shared-care including efficient communication with specialists.

CONCLUSIONS:

According to patients with cancer, formal GP involvement appears feasible, although important barriers must be overcome before instituting care substitution. A possible solution are personalized follow-up plans based on three-way conversations with the specialist and the GP after the initial hospital care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS With adequate training, time, and remuneration, formal GP involvement could ensure more comprehensive care, possibly starting with less complex cases.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Colorectal Neoplasms / General Practitioners Type of study: Guideline / Qualitative_research Language: En Journal: Patient Educ Couns Year: 2024 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Colorectal Neoplasms / General Practitioners Type of study: Guideline / Qualitative_research Language: En Journal: Patient Educ Couns Year: 2024 Type: Article