Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Dataset . 2013
License: CC 0
Data sources: ZENODO
DRYAD
Dataset . 2013
License: CC 0
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Data from: Gynaecological cancer follow-up: national survey of current practice in the UK

Authors: Leeson, Simon; Stuart, Nick; Sylvestre, Yvonne; Hall, Liz; Whitaker, Rhiannon;

Data from: Gynaecological cancer follow-up: national survey of current practice in the UK

Abstract

Objective: To establish a baseline of national practice for follow-up after treatment for gynaecological cancer. Design: Questionnaire survey. Setting: Gynaecological cancer centres and units. Geographical location: UK Participants: Members of the British Gynaecological Cancer Society and the National Forum of Gynaecological Oncology Nurses. Interventions: A questionnaire survey. Outcome measures: To determine schedules of follow-up, who provides it and what routine testing is used for patients who have had previous gynaecological cancer. Results: A total of 117 responses were obtained; 115 (98%) reported hospital scheduled regular follow-up appointments. Two involved General Practitioners. Follow-up was augmented or replaced by telephone follow-up in 29 (25%) and patient initiated appointments in 38 responses (32%). A total of 80 (68%) cancer specialists also offered combined follow-up clinics with other specialties. Clinical examinations for hospital based follow-up were mainly performed by doctors (67% for scheduled regular appointments and 63% for patient initiated appointments) while telephone follow-up care was provided in the majority by nurses (76%). Most respondents provided routine tests (76/117 (65%)), from which 66/76 (87%) reported carrying out surveillance tests for ovarian cancer, 35/76 (46%) for cervical cancer, 8/76 (11%) for vulval cancer and 7/76 (9%) for endometrial cancer. Usually patients were discharged after five years (82/117 (70%)), whereas three (3%) were discharged after four years, nine (8%) after three and one (1%) after two years. Conclusions: Practice varied but most used a standard hospital based protocol of appointments for five years and routine tests were performed usually for women with ovarian cancer. A minority utilised nurse-led or telephone follow-up. General Practitioners were rarely involved in routine care. A randomised study comparing various models of follow-up could be considered.

Gynaecological Cancer Survey datasetThis file contains the dataset for the manuscript “Gynaecological cancer follow-up: National survey of current practice in the UK”. The data was collected using the Bristol Online Survey (BOS). All methods are described in the associated manuscript. The column headings correspond to each of the questions in the survey which are described in a separate worksheet in the excel spreadsheet.GCS_dataset.xlsb

Related Organizations
Keywords

Gynaecological oncology, Organisation of health services, Protocols & guidelines, Protocols & guidelines

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    1
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 10
    download downloads 2
  • 10
    views
    2
    downloads
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
download
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
downloads
OpenAIRE UsageCountsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
1
Average
Average
Average
10
2
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research