Scholarlink

Background <p>Even many years after their cancer diagnosis, long-term survivors may continue to suffer from the long-term or late effects of cancer. Once structured oncological follow-up has been completed, general practitioners (GPs) often remain the primary point of contact for these patients. However, there are often gaps in the information or knowledge regarding the previous cancer, the treatments received, and the potential long-term or late effects.</p> Objectives <p>The study aimed to investigate and illustrate the information (content and format) that should be passed on to the GP in charge once oncological follow-up care has been completed, in order to support them in providing care that meets the needs of long-term survivors.</p> Materials and methods <p>The qualitative study involved GPs from the SaxoForN research practice network in Dresden and Frankfurt am Main. It consisted of three phases: a)&#xa0;Interviews with GPs about the content and form of constructed case vignettes from oncology. b)&#xa0;A&#xa0;thinking-aloud interview with an oncologist to capture the oncological perspective when writing a&#xa0;report. c)&#xa0;A&#xa0;workshop with GPs and an oncologist to develop recommendations for preparing final oncology reports for GP practices. The analysis of the transcripts and protocols was summarized in terms of content.</p> Results <p>A&#xa0;total of 14&#xa0;GPs took part in the interviews, and 6&#xa0;GPs participated in the workshop. One oncologist contributed to both the workshop and the thinking-aloud interview. The findings from all three study phases were synthesized into a&#xa0;set of recommendations. These reflect the perspectives and needs of GPs regarding the type and format of information required for the care of long-term cancer survivors. This includes information on diagnoses, treatments received including potential late effects as well as guidance for continued care in the primary care setting. The information should be concise and to the point, allow for clinical discretion on the part of the GP, and take into account the specific conditions of primary care.</p> Conclusion <p>Based on empirical findings, recommendations were developed to improve the design of oncology discharge summaries, with the aim of providing targeted support to GPs in the continued care of long-term cancer survivors after the end of oncological follow-up. A&#xa0;subsequent step will be to evaluate the implementation of these recommendations.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Relevante Informationen aus der Onkologie für die hausärztliche Versorgung von Langzeitüberlebenden einer Krebserkrankung

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月2日

查看全文
  • Astrid-Alexandra Klein,
  • Mandy Gottschall,
  • Sandra Salm,
  • Teresa V. Halbsguth,
  • Karola Mergenthal,
  • Corina Güthlin,
  • Karen Voigt

摘要

Background

Even many years after their cancer diagnosis, long-term survivors may continue to suffer from the long-term or late effects of cancer. Once structured oncological follow-up has been completed, general practitioners (GPs) often remain the primary point of contact for these patients. However, there are often gaps in the information or knowledge regarding the previous cancer, the treatments received, and the potential long-term or late effects.

Objectives

The study aimed to investigate and illustrate the information (content and format) that should be passed on to the GP in charge once oncological follow-up care has been completed, in order to support them in providing care that meets the needs of long-term survivors.

Materials and methods

The qualitative study involved GPs from the SaxoForN research practice network in Dresden and Frankfurt am Main. It consisted of three phases: a) Interviews with GPs about the content and form of constructed case vignettes from oncology. b) A thinking-aloud interview with an oncologist to capture the oncological perspective when writing a report. c) A workshop with GPs and an oncologist to develop recommendations for preparing final oncology reports for GP practices. The analysis of the transcripts and protocols was summarized in terms of content.

Results

A total of 14 GPs took part in the interviews, and 6 GPs participated in the workshop. One oncologist contributed to both the workshop and the thinking-aloud interview. The findings from all three study phases were synthesized into a set of recommendations. These reflect the perspectives and needs of GPs regarding the type and format of information required for the care of long-term cancer survivors. This includes information on diagnoses, treatments received including potential late effects as well as guidance for continued care in the primary care setting. The information should be concise and to the point, allow for clinical discretion on the part of the GP, and take into account the specific conditions of primary care.

Conclusion

Based on empirical findings, recommendations were developed to improve the design of oncology discharge summaries, with the aim of providing targeted support to GPs in the continued care of long-term cancer survivors after the end of oncological follow-up. A subsequent step will be to evaluate the implementation of these recommendations.