Exploring why patients with cancer consult GPs: a 1-year data extraction

Fidjeland, Heidi Lidal; Vistad, Ingvild; Gjelstad, Svein; Brekke, Mette

doi:10.3399/bjgpopen19x101663

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following active treatment, cancer survivors have healthcare surveillance needs related to cancer [ 13 – 15 ], cancer treatment [ 13 , 16 ], and other medical [ 17 ] and psychological comorbidities [ 18 , 19 ]. Post-treatment follow-up is provided by GPs, oncologists, and other specialists, [ 18 , 20 ] as well as rehabilitation providers such as physiotherapists and chiropractors [ 21 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The total number of specialist health service contacts for cancer survivors (admissions, day treatment, outpatient visits) amounted to approximately 139,000 in 2017 [ 28 ]. In the same year, the median number of GP contacts was 5 per cancer survivor, varying from 1 to 40 compared to 2.7 contacts by non-cancer patients [ 17 ]. Furthermore, cancer survivors are sevenfold more likely to be high-users of out-of-hours centers (medical services for immediate medical assistance [ 29 ]) than non-cancer patients [ 30 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conventional health care service utilization among cancer survivors that visit traditional and complementary providers in the Tromsø study: a cross-sectional study

Nakandi

Mora

Kristoffersen

2022

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) is commonly used among cancer patients worldwide. Cancer patients in Norway mainly visit T&CM providers in addition to conventional health care services. It is not known how their utilization of T&CM providers influences their use of conventional health care services. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference between the utilization of conventional health care services among cancer survivors that visit T&CM providers and those that do not, and their associated factors. Method Health care service utilization data were obtained from cancer survivors 40 years and above participating in the Tromsø Study: Tromsø 7 conducted in 2015–2016. Data were collected from self-administered questionnaires. Pearson chi-square tests, Fisher exact tests, t-test, and logistic regression were used, with the significance level considered at p < 0.05. Results Of 1553 individuals, 10% (n = 155) reported visiting T&CM providers in the past 12 months. As both cancer survivors visiting and not visiting T&CM providers were frequent users of conventional health care, no significant differences were found in the overall use of conventional health care (98.1vs.94.5%, p = .056). Users of T&CM providers were however more likely to visit physiotherapists (40.1% vs 25%, p < .001), emergency rooms (29.2% vs 16.5%, p < .001), chiropractors (17% vs 6%, p < .001), and psychologist/psychiatrist (8.9% vs 3.4%, p < .001). They also had more frequent visits to conventional health care (11.45 vs 8.31 yearly visits, p = 0.014), particularly to general practitioners (5.21 visits vs. 3.94 visits, p = .002). Conclusion Results from this study show that visits to T&CM providers are associated with more visits to conventional health care services among cancer survivors. Further studies are needed to investigate the reasons for this high use behavior.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conventional health care service utilization among cancer survivors that visit traditional and complementary providers in the Tromsø study: a cross-sectional study

Nakandi

Mora

Kristoffersen

2022

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Significant predictors of the number of comorbidities post-diagnosis include cancer type, treatment received, years since diagnosis, age, adiposity, physical activity, and level of deprivation. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Unique multimorbidity clusters drive differences on cancer survival outcomes, 17,18 drug prescriptions, 19 general practitioner (GP) contacts and home visits 21,22 and hospitalisations. 11 Inflammatory biomarkers are postulated to derive a clinically relevant metric in the early prediction of multimorbidity, including diseases of various physiologic systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Home-built environment interventions and inflammation biomarkers: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInflammation control is a fundamental part of chronic care in patients with a history of cancer and comorbidity. As the risk-benefit profile of anti-inflammatory drugs in cancer survivors (CS) is unclear, GPs and patients could benefit from alternative non-pharmacological treatment options for dysregulated inflammation. There is a potential for home built environment (H-BE) interventions to modulate inflammation, however, discrepancies exist between studies.AimTo evaluate the effectiveness of H-BE interventions on cancer-associated inflammation biomarkers.Design & settingA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised trials in community-dwelling adults.MethodPubMed-Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar will be searched for clinical trials published in January 2000 onwards. We will include H-BE interventions modifying air quality, thermal comfort, non-ionising radiation, noise, nature and water. No restrictions to study population will be applied to allow deriving expectations for effects of the interventions in CS from available source populations. Outcome measures will be inflammatory biomarkers clinically and physiologically relevant to cancer. The first reviewer will independently screen articles together with GPs and extract data that will be verified by a second reviewer. The quality of studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tools. Depending on the clinical and methodological homogeneity of populations, interventions, and outcomes, we will conduct a meta-analysis using random-effects models.ConclusionsFindings will determine the effectiveness of H-BE interventions on inflammatory parameters, guide future directions for its provision in community-dwelling CS and support GPs with safer anti-inflammatory treatment options in high-risk patients for clinical complications.

show abstract

“…Patient advocates ask for a more tailored approach to survivorship care, including increased attention to psychosocial needs, multimorbidity and rehabilitation aspects of care. 3 In most countries, general practitioners (GPs) are involved in the management of needs and symptoms of cancer survivors, [4][5][6][7][8] without playing a formal role during survivorship care. Interview studies among patients and GPs showed ambiguous opinions about a greater involvement of the GP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recruitment challenges to the I CARE study: a randomised trial on general practitioner-led colon cancer survivorship care

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe I CARE study (Improving Care After colon canceR treatment in the Netherlands) aims to compare surgeon-led to general practitioner (GP)-led colon cancer survivorship care. Recruitment to the trial took longer than expected. In this descriptive study, recruitment is critically reviewed.SettingPatients were recruited from eight Dutch medical centres.ParticipantsPatients treated with curative intent for stages I–III colon cancer. Target patient sample size was calculated at 300.InterventionsPatients were randomised to surgeon-led (usual) versus GP-led care, with or without access to an eHealth application (Oncokompas).Outcome measuresBaseline characteristics of (non-)participants, reasons for non-participation and strategies to improve recruitment were reviewed.ResultsOut of 1238 eligible patients, 353 patients were included. Of these, 50 patients dropped out shortly after randomisation and before start of the intervention, resulting in a participation rate of 25%. Participants were on average slightly younger (68.1 years vs 69.3 years) and more often male (67% vs 50%) in comparison to non-participants. A total of 806 patients declined participation for reasons most often relating to research (57%), including the wish to remain in specialist care (31%) and too much effort to participate (12%). Some patients mentioned health (9%) and confrontation with the disease (5%) as a reason. In 43 cases, GPs declined participation, often related to the study objective, need for financial compensation and time restraints. The generally low participation rate led to concerns about reaching the target sample size. Methods to overcome recruitment challenges included changes to the original recruitment procedure and the addition of new study centres.ConclusionsChallenges were faced in the recruitment to a randomised trial on GP-led colon cancer survivorship care. Research on the transition of care requires sufficient time, funding and support base among patients and healthcare professionals. These findings will help inform researchers and policy-makers on the development of future practices.Trial registration numberNTR4860.

show abstract

Exploring why patients with cancer consult GPs: a 1-year data extraction

Cited by 8 publications

References 17 publications

Conventional health care service utilization among cancer survivors that visit traditional and complementary providers in the Tromsø study: a cross-sectional study

Conventional health care service utilization among cancer survivors that visit traditional and complementary providers in the Tromsø study: a cross-sectional study

Home-built environment interventions and inflammation biomarkers: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Recruitment challenges to the I CARE study: a randomised trial on general practitioner-led colon cancer survivorship care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About