Table 3.

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

Study	Participants	Intervention	Results	Risk of bias
Gulliford 1997 RCT	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