Paradoxes of follow-up – health professionals’ views on follow-up after surgical treatment in gynecological cancer

Figures & data

Table I. Participant characteristics.

Interview 1 Mixed group	Interview 2 Doctors	Interview 3 Nurses
Doctor, female, age 53, AUH, *9	Doctor, female, age 63, RH, *23	Nurse, female, age 42, RH, *9
Doctor, male, age 56, HEV, *20	Doctor, male, age 47, RH, *15	Nurse, female, age 42, RH, *3
Nurse, female, age 41, HEV, *9	Doctor, male, age 69, HEV, *30	Nurse, female, age 49, AUH, *12
Nurse, female, age 58, HEV, *9	Doctor, male, age 55, AUH, *25
Nurse, female, age 33, AUH, *5
Main themes in the interview guide:	• Existing follow-up program • Life after cancer • Future follow-up

AUH: Aarhus University Hospital; HEV: Hospitalsenheden Vest, Herning; RH: Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen; *: Years in Onco-gynecology.

Figure 1. Health professionals’ views on advantages and dilemmas in the existing follow-up program on different levels. To the left, advantages on a personal level is listed as a time buffer in a tight schedule and as a source of personal success (mainly true for the doctors). Dilemmas are different levels of knowledge between patients and health professionals. Further, it is unsatisfying (especially true for the nurses), that the nurses’ main competencies are almost unexploited in the existing set-up. In the middle, advantages on the professional level (especially true for the doctors) are doing quality control on their own work and opportunity to detect post-surgery sequelae. Dilemmas are the lack of evidence for a survival benefit of follow-up and the missing possibilities for referral to, e.g. a sexologist when needed. To the right, the health professionals’ concerns about patients’ benefits/advantages and disservices/dilemmas in the existing follow-up program is shown.