Skip to main content
. 2018 Jun 15;31(2):75–88. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzy124

Table 1.

Healthcare visits

Study Difference between cancer patients and controls
Better in cancer than controls No difference Worse in cancer than controls
(or ‘after’ compared to ‘before’ cancer depending on the study design) (or ‘after’ compared to ‘before’ cancer depending on the study design) (or ‘after’ compared to ‘before’ cancer depending on the study design)
Heins (2015) [28]
  • Cancer patients had more general practitioner CONTACTS FOR ANY REASON per year than controls (cancer, mean 11.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 10.9–12.9 versus control, mean 10.0; 95% CI, 9.5–10.5).

  • Cancer Patients had more general practitioner CONTACTS FOR CONDITIONS OTHER THAN DIABETES per year than controls (cancer, mean 8.3; 95% CI, 7.6–9.0 versus control, mean 7.1; 95% CI, 6.7–7.5).

There was no difference in the number of general practitioner CONTACTS FOR DIABETES per year between cancer patients and controls (cancer, mean 2.7; 95% CI, 2.4–3.0 versus control, mean 2.9; 95% CI, 2.7–3.1).
Snyder (2013) [13]
  • Overall, a higher percent of all cancer (breast cancer [BC], colorectal cancer [CC], and prostate cancer [PC] combined) patients than controls had a 6-MONTHLY VISIT (cancer, 86%; 95% CI, 84–88% versus control, 81%; 95% CI, 80–82%).

  • A higher percent of BC patients than controls had a 6-MONTHLY VISIT (cancer, 92%; 95% CI, 89–95% versus control, 84%; 95% CI, 81–87%).

  • A higher percent of prostate cancer PC patients than controls had a 6-MONTHLY VISIT (cancer, 84%; 95% CI, 82–86% versus control, 76%; 95% CI, 74%–78%).

  • There was no difference between the percent of CC patients and controls who had a 6-MONTHLY VISIT (cancer, 83%; 95% CI, 80–86% versus control, 86%; 95% CI, 84–88%).

  • Overall, there was no difference between the percent of all cancer patients and controls who had an ANNUAL EYE EXAM (cancer, 45%; 95% CI, 43–47% versus control, 46%; 95% CI, 44–48%).

  • There was no difference between the percent of BC patients and controls who had an ANNUAL EYE EXAM (cancer, 49%; 95% CI, 44–54% versus control, 52%; 95% CI, 48–56%).

A lower percent of CC patients than controls had an ANNUAL EYE EXAM (cancer, 42%; 95% CI, 38–46% versus control, 49%; 95% CI, 46–52%).
There was no difference between the percent of PC patients and controls who had an ANNUAL EYE EXAM (cancer, 45%; 95% CI, 42–48% versus control, 43%; 95% CI, 41–45%).
Irizarry (2013) [14] There was no difference between the percent of cancer patients and controls receiving DIABETES EDUCATION (cancer, 3.5% versus control, 3.8% [insufficient data to calculate Cis]).
Chiao (2010) [16] There was no difference between the rate (per patient) of PRIMARY CARE VISITS per year before and after CC diagnosis (mean before, 4.1; 95% CI, 3.6–4.6 versus mean after, 4.6; 95% CI, 4.0–5.2).
There was no difference between the rate (per patient) of EYE CLINIC VISITS per year before and after CC diagnosis (mean before, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9–1.6 versus mean after, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9–1.6).
Hanchate (2010) [18] There was no difference between the percent of cancer patients and controls receiving a BIENNIAL EYE EXAM (cancer, 58% versus control, 57% [insufficient data to calculate Cis]).
Keating (2007) [19] There was no difference between the percent of cancer patients and controls who had a DILATED RETINAL EXAM (cancer, 68% versus control, 67% [insufficient data to calculate Cis]).
Earle (2004) [20] A lower percent of CC patients than controls had a 6-MONTHLY VISIT (cancer, 93%; versus control 95% [insufficient data to calculate Cis]).
A lower percent of CC patients than controls had an ANNUAL EYE EXAM (cancer 27% versus control, 30% [insufficient data to calculate Cis]).

Shaded results indicate that the findings were aggregated across multiple cancers, by the authors of that study, in instances where results from individual cancers included in that study also were reported.