English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background: Primary care–led follow-up is a safe and acceptable alternative to oncologist-led follow-up. We sought to investigate patterns of primary care use during cancer follow-up care. Methods: We identified all persons in Nova Scotia, diagnosed with an invasive breast, prostate, colorectal, or gynecologic cancer between January 2006 and December 2013. We linked this dataset to cancer centre, hospital discharge abstracts, physicians’ billing, and census data. We identified a survivor cohort (n = 12,201), then descriptively examined primary care use during follow-up care. Multivariate Poisson and negative binomial regression, respectively, were used to examine primary care use for two outcomes: total number of primary care provider (pcp) visits (all reasons) and total number of cancer-specific pcp visits. Results: The mean numbers of pcp visits (all reasons) and cancer-specific pcp visits per year for survivors who did not receive cancer centre follow-up (cc-fup) were 8.12 and 0.43 visits, respectively, and for survivors who continued to receive cc-fup were 8.75 and 0.63 visits, respectively. Age, cancer type, stage at diagnosis, comorbidity scores, year of diagnosis, and receipt of cc-fup were associated with both outcomes. Compared with prostate cancer survivors, breast, colorectal, and gynecologic cancer survivors had, respectively, 56%, 69%, and 56% fewer expected cancer-specific PCP visits. Receipt of cc-fup increased the expected number of pcp visits (all reasons) by 12% and cancer-specific pcp visits by 50%. Conclusions: Primary care use was higher in survivors who continued to visit their oncology teams for follow-up. This suggests that survivors who remain with their oncology teams after treatment continue to have high needs not met by these teams alone.

Primary Care Use after Cancer Treatment: An Analysis of Linked Administrative Data