The role of general practitioners in the work guidance of cancer patients: views of general practitioners and occupational physicians

Abstract

Purpose To explore views of general practitioners (GPs) and occupational physicians (OPs) on the role of GPs in work guidance of cancer patients. Methods Between 2016 and 2019, two focus groups with GPs (N = 17) and two focus groups with OPs (N = 10) were conducted. Focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed by data-driven analysis. Results GPs generally indicated that they inquire about patients’ occupations but do not structurally document these. GPs described offering support and advice to patients regarding their work, while other GPs stated they do not interfere with their patients’ work or return to work (RTW) process. In general, GPs stated that they do not aspire a professional role in the work guidance of patients, due to lack of expertise and not having sufficient knowledge in work regulations and legislation. In contrast, OPs anticipated a proactive role from GPs concerning work guidance in cancer patients, and they expected GPs to refer cancer patients to the OP, when required. Moreover, they emphasised the importance of communication between GPs and OPs about patients’ work-related problems to achieve common goals. Conclusions GPs can contribute to cancer patients’ RTW process by supporting patients, giving advice and providing referral to other health professionals. Better cooperation between GPs and OPs may improve work guidance in cancer patients. Implications for Cancer Survivors When cancer patients with work-related issues get appropriate advice and support from GPs and referred in time to OPs, the RTW process and staying at work of cancer patients may be positively affected.

Strategies for General Practitioners to Enhance Cancer Care: Insights from a Patient-Centered Questionnaire Survey in Southern China

“…GPs played a very important role in the whole process of diagnosis and treatment of cancer, including cancer screening, diagnosis, evaluation and dealing with treatment side effects, follow-up and monitoring of cancer survivors. 30 Participants of GPs could reduce the workload of specialized physicians in tertiary hospitals and relieve overcrowding in tertiary hospitals, which was benefit for reducing delay in registration and remission of time-consuming. However, because the treatment details about cancer patients in tertiary hospitals often could not be well conveyed to community hospitals, 31 there was an information disconnect between tertiary hospitals and community hospitals, which was not conducive to the effective and accurate management of cancer patients by GPs.…”

A Multicenter Study to Assess a Systematic Screening of Occupational Exposures in Lung Cancer Patients

“…The clinical workload of oncologists and lung cancer specialists, as well as the time required for collecting the occupational history, make the screening of occupational exposures a difficult pursuit in the oncology encounter [ 14 , 23 ]. This barrier has been widely described in the literature [ 14 , 16 , 22 , 23 ], In addition to a lack of time, some physicians tend to pay little attention to occupational exposures as they do not affect the treatment process. Several interventions have been conducted to raise awareness among physicians on this issue, mainly through educational meetings [ 38 , 39 , 40 ].…”

“…Under-reporting of occupational cancers can be explained by the lack of awareness and expertise of physicians to assess occupational exposures [ 16 , 22 , 23 ], as well as the time and effort required to collect the occupational history and to report, which are often difficult to reconcile with the clinical workload [ 14 , 23 ]. Moreover, the high prevalence of smoking in lung cancer patients has been identified as a barrier to the identification and reporting of occupational lung cancers [ 24 , 25 ].…”

Primary care physicians’ knowledge and confidence in providing cancer survivorship care: a systematic review

“…We included 22 quantitative studies (all cross-sectional survey design) , 8 qualitative studies (7 interviews [41][42][43][44][45][46][47] and 1 focus group [48]), and 3 mixed-methods NA. studies [49][50][51] (Table 1).…”

“…Of the included qualitative studies, some specifically aimed to describe knowledge and confidence in care (n = 5) [43-45, 47, 51], while others described it secondary to their aim (n = 5) [41,42,46,48,49]. Many studies described a lack of knowledge to provide survivorship care (n = 9) [41,[43][44][45][46][47][48][49]51].…”