Do patients with long-term side effects of cancer treatment benefit 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 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 interventions 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

Do patients treated for colorectal cancer benefit from general practitioner support? A video vignette study

Background: Patients who have been treated for colorectal cancer in Australia can consult their general practitioner (GP) for advice about symptoms or side effects at any time following their treatment. However, there is no evidence that such patients are consistently advised by GPs, and patients experience substantial unmet need for reassurance and advice. Objective: To explore the patient management options selected by GPs to treat a set of patients describing their symptoms following treatment for colorectal cancer. Methods: This was an Internet-based survey. Participants (GPs) viewed 6 video vignettes of actors representing patients who had been treated for colorectal cancer. The actor-patients presented problems that resulted from their treatment. Participants indicated their diagnosis and stated if they would prescribe, refer, or order tests, based on that diagnosis. These responses were then rated against the management decisions for those vignettes as recommended by a team of colorectal cancer experts. Results: In total, 52 GPs consented to take part in the study, and 40 (77%) completed the study. Most GPs made a diagnosis of colorectal cancer treatment side effects/symptoms of recurrence that was consistent with the experts' opinions. However, correct diagnosis was dependent on the type of case viewed. Compared with radiation proctitis, GPs were more likely to recognize peripheral neuropathy (odds ratio, OR, 4.43, 95% CI 1.41-13.96, P=.011) and erectile dysfunction (OR 9.70, 95% CI 2.48-38.03, P=.001), but less likely to identify chemotherapy-induced fatigue (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08-0.44). GPs who had more hours of direct patient care (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17-0.84, P=.02), were experienced (OR 9.78, 95% CI 1.18-8.84, P=.02), and consulted more patients per week (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.16-5.30, P=.02) suggested a management plan that was consistent with the expert opinion. Conclusions: In this pilot study, years of experience and direct patient contact hours had a significant and positive impact on the management of patients. This study also showed promising results indicating that management of the common side effects of colorectal cancer treatment can be delegated to general practice. Such an intervention could support the application of shared models of care. However, a larger study, including the management of side effects in real patients, needs to be conducted before this can be safely recommended

Recruitment of research participants

Successful recruitment and retention of study participants is essential for the overall success of a research study. The recruitment process involves identifying potential research participants and providing them with the information to establish their interest to join a proposed research study. Research studies are often time and labour intensive and inappropriate recruitment of research participants can significantly impact the study findings. This chapter will introduce readers to a range of associated issues, and offer possible solutions and mitigation strategies to enhance research participant engagement. First, this chapter describes the issues surrounding investigators’ and potential participants’ expectations related to their involvement in research. Next, the chapter will identify the facilitators, barriers, and challenges associated with recruitment and retention of participant. Then, the chapter will highlight some traditional and modern recruitment and retention techniques, for participation in health research across the life course: children and adolescents, adults, and seniors. Last, the chapter will detail the specific attention, resources, and sensitivity required to maximise recruitment and retention when conducting research with specific population groups such as minority populations and medically compromised people