Do patients with long-term side effects of cancer treatment benefits from general practitioner support? A literature review.
Background: Alongside specialist cancer clinics, general practitioners have an important role in cancer patients' follow-up care, yet no literature summarises the nature, extent and impact of their involvement. This paper addresses this issue through a review of the literature. Methods: Studies...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Utrecht University Library Open Access Journals
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/80718 |
| _version_ | 1848764257720598528 |
|---|---|
| author | Ngune, Irene Jiwa, Moyez McManus, Alexandra Hughes, Jeff |
| author_facet | Ngune, Irene Jiwa, Moyez McManus, Alexandra Hughes, Jeff |
| author_sort | Ngune, Irene |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Background: Alongside specialist cancer clinics, general practitioners have an important role in cancer patients' follow-up care, yet no literature summarises the nature, extent and impact of their involvement. This paper addresses this issue through a review of the literature. Methods: Studies were sourced from six academic databases - AustHealth (n = 202), CINAHL (n = 500), the Cochrane Library (reviews and trials; n = 200), Embase (n = 368), PHCRIS (n = 132) and PubMed/Medline (n = 410). Studies that focused on interventions designed for patients receiving follow-up care and reported cancer care provided by a general practitioner delivered alongside specialist care were reviewed. Results: A total of 19 papers were identified as relevant for this review (3 randomised control trials; 4 cross-sectional, 5 cohort and 3 qualitative studies, and 3 systematic reviews). The reviewed studies indicated that providing general practitioner-led supportive inter- ventions for post-treatment care of cancer patients is feasible and acceptable to patients. General practitioner involvement resulted in improved physical and psychosocial well-being of patients and continuity of care, especially for patients with concomitant health conditions. Conclusion: Involving general practitioners in post-treatment cancer care is beneficial to patients. However, proactive initiatives that encourage and facilitate patients to consult their general practitioner about their needs or symptoms of recurrence should be considered. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:16:29Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-80718 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:16:29Z |
| publishDate | 2015 |
| publisher | Utrecht University Library Open Access Journals |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-807182021-01-07T07:46:47Z Do patients with long-term side effects of cancer treatment benefits from general practitioner support? A literature review. Ngune, Irene Jiwa, Moyez McManus, Alexandra Hughes, Jeff cancer, primary health care, follow-up care, supportive care, integrated care, Background: Alongside specialist cancer clinics, general practitioners have an important role in cancer patients' follow-up care, yet no literature summarises the nature, extent and impact of their involvement. This paper addresses this issue through a review of the literature. Methods: Studies were sourced from six academic databases - AustHealth (n = 202), CINAHL (n = 500), the Cochrane Library (reviews and trials; n = 200), Embase (n = 368), PHCRIS (n = 132) and PubMed/Medline (n = 410). Studies that focused on interventions designed for patients receiving follow-up care and reported cancer care provided by a general practitioner delivered alongside specialist care were reviewed. Results: A total of 19 papers were identified as relevant for this review (3 randomised control trials; 4 cross-sectional, 5 cohort and 3 qualitative studies, and 3 systematic reviews). The reviewed studies indicated that providing general practitioner-led supportive inter- ventions for post-treatment care of cancer patients is feasible and acceptable to patients. General practitioner involvement resulted in improved physical and psychosocial well-being of patients and continuity of care, especially for patients with concomitant health conditions. Conclusion: Involving general practitioners in post-treatment cancer care is beneficial to patients. However, proactive initiatives that encourage and facilitate patients to consult their general practitioner about their needs or symptoms of recurrence should be considered. 2015 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/80718 10.5334/ijic.1987 English http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Utrecht University Library Open Access Journals fulltext |
| spellingShingle | cancer, primary health care, follow-up care, supportive care, integrated care, Ngune, Irene Jiwa, Moyez McManus, Alexandra Hughes, Jeff Do patients with long-term side effects of cancer treatment benefits from general practitioner support? A literature review. |
| title | Do patients with long-term side effects of cancer treatment benefits from general practitioner support? A literature review. |
| title_full | Do patients with long-term side effects of cancer treatment benefits from general practitioner support? A literature review. |
| title_fullStr | Do patients with long-term side effects of cancer treatment benefits from general practitioner support? A literature review. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Do patients with long-term side effects of cancer treatment benefits from general practitioner support? A literature review. |
| title_short | Do patients with long-term side effects of cancer treatment benefits from general practitioner support? A literature review. |
| title_sort | do patients with long-term side effects of cancer treatment benefits from general practitioner support? a literature review. |
| topic | cancer, primary health care, follow-up care, supportive care, integrated care, |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/80718 |