Aims and objectives

To systematically identify, synthesise and characterise the available qualitative evidence on the experience of adult colorectal cancer survivors with continuity of care led by different health professionals.

Background

The limited evidence base for effective continuity of care led by different medical staff who assist colorectal cancer survivors with their unique survivorship care hampers the development of effective interventions. Synthesising the data on survivors’ experience of care led by different health professionals is critical to develop such interventions.

Design

A qualitative evidence synthesis using the Thomas and Harden method and the PRISMA 2020 checklist provided by the EQUATOR network were used.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched through November 2020 for qualitative and mixed methods studies in English. JBI-QARI was used to undertake a quality review of the identified studies. The review findings were synthesised by a team of researchers, and the level of confidence was evaluated using GRADE-CERQual.

Results

Eleven studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. The identified analytical themes included experience of diversity, preference for health professionals and space for enhancement to facilitate improved medical care delivery. Colorectal cancer survivors report diverse experiences regarding continuity of care led by different providers. Specifically, they attach substantial importance to trusted relationships with providers that are closely associated with their overall care experience.

Conclusion

Effective communication and good rapport among stakeholders are cornerstones for addressing the complexity of ongoing care. Future interventions should include adjusting the percentage of care from different providers to deliver cost-effective and personalised continuity of care.

Relevance to clinical practice

Synthesising data on survivors’ experience facilitates the development of practical approaches to increase the quality of continuity of care and may also foster the integration of providers’ advantages to enable more cost-effective intervention. The limited capacity of primary care providers may be enhanced by better cooperation and communication with specialists and by additional professional cancer-related training.