Table 3 Summary and short description of the three included studies on women’s preferences and values

Gulliford 1997

RCT

96 patients in conventional follow-up and 95 patients in non-conventional follow-up

Comparison of conventional follow-up (clinic visits, every three, four, six or 12 months, based on the time distance from the surgery) with non-conventional follow-up (clinical visits every 12 or 24 months). Mammography in both groups every 12 or 24 months.

Twice as many patients in both groups expressed a preference for reducing rather than increasing follow-up visits.

No increased use of local practitioner services or telephone triage was recorded in the group with less-intensive follow-up.

Low risk of bias

Stemmler 2008

Questionnaire in the context of a surveillance study

801 (30.1%) of 2658 eligible patients

Survey aimed to evaluate patients’ views on surveillance after breast cancer.

The majority of women confirmed the need for surveillance (95%), and 47.8% of the patients in the self-help group answered that there was a need for more intensive diagnostic effort during follow-up. The main expectation from an intensified follow-up was the increased sense of security (80%).

High risk of bias

Kimman 2010

Multicentre discrete-choice experiment survey

5 hospitals, 331 (59%) of 557 eligible patients

Survey aimed to assess:

- preferred professional/s involved in follow-up;

- preferred type of follow-up (in person vs telephone);

- preferred follow-up schedule

The most preferred person to perform follow-up was the medical specialist, but a combination of the medical specialist and breast care nurse was also acceptable to patients.

Face-to-face contact was strongly preferred over telephone contact.

Follow-up visits every three months were preferred over visits every four, six, or 12 months.

Moderate risk of bias