Cited by 41Cancer survivorship and carePatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Group medical consultations (GMCs) and tablet-based online support group sessions in the follow-up of breast cancer: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Open access
Visser, Annemiek, Prins, Judith B., Jansen, Lisette, Radema, Sandra A., Schlooz, Margrethe S., van Dalen, Thijs, van Laarhoven, Hanneke W.M.·2018·The Breast

Abstract

Objective Group medical consultations (GMCs) provide individual medical visits in the presence of ≤7 peer-patients. In the follow-up of breast cancer, we evaluated the efficacy of a new type of blended care My-GMC, a GMC combined with a tablet-based online app, consisting of three online support group sessions (SGS) and additional information.Methods This randomized controlled trial compared the effect of My-GMC (n = 59) with one individual medical visit (n = 50) (care as usual). Between-group differences on the outcomes distress and empowerment were analyzed 1 week, 3 and 6 months after the visit.Results No between-group differences were found for the primary outcomes distress and empowerment. More themes were discussed in GMCs compared to individual visits. Significantly more patients experienced peer-support in GMCs (78%) than via the online app (29%). Satisfaction with the online app was low.Conclusions My-GMC did not result in improvements in distress or empowerment, which might partly be explained by low baseline distress levels. This paper provides valuable information concerning factors on organizational level as well as individual level influencing the evaluation of a blended care intervention.Practice implications My-GMC provided an innovative alternative, combining professional and peer-support in face-to-face and online SGS, resulting in additional information provision and peer-support. Further improvement of the apps is needed to improve user satisfaction.Netherlands trial register NTR3771.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.breast.2018.05.012

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Qualified therapists delivered the intervention in ten reviewed studies, most often alongside website self-guided materials.

    “Qualified therapists delivered the intervention in ten reviewed studies, most often alongside the website self-guided materials [37, 43–45, 53, 56, 57, 59, 61].”

    From Web-based interventions for fear of cancer recurrence: A scoping review with a focus on suggestions for the development and evaluation of future interventions (2024) · cites this paper as [44]

    Section 2.2.2 describes one trial in which clinical nurse specialists attended online support sessions alongside tablet-based videos and written information. It does not identify the providers as qualified therapists or the materials as website-based, and it cannot substantiate the count of ten reviewed studies. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • No convincing data are available on the benefit of mHealth for enduring adverse psychological sequel.

    “However, no convincing data are available on the benefit of mHealth for enduring adverse psychological sequel [46,49].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Visser, A., Prins, J. B., Jansen, L., Radema, S. A., Schlooz, M. S., van Dalen, T., & van Laarhoven, H. W. M.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Diakonessenhuis hospital (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Visser, Annemiek
  • Prins, Judith B.
  • Jansen, Lisette
  • Radema, Sandra A.
  • Schlooz, Margrethe S.
Venue
The Breast
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
40
Pages
181-188
ISSN
0960-9776 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808190235
Cited by
41
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Breast (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
Funders
GlaxoSmithKline
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
breast cancer follow-up, online support groups, blended care, peer support, psychological distress, patient empowerment, patient satisfaction, survivorship care
MeSH terms
Adult, Aftercare, Aged, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Peer Group, Psychotherapy, Group, Referral and Consultation, Self-Help Groups, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Telemedicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review