Skip to main content

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

From: Intensive follow-up for women with breast cancer: review of clinical, economic and patient’s preference domains through evidence to decision framework

Study Participants Intervention Results Risk of bias
Gulliford 1997
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