Table 2.

Quotes on follow-up being inflexible, paternalistic and unresponsive to need

Need for flexibility	[we need follow-up on a] more intelligent basis rather than the, the blunt tool of everyone gets exactly the same thing (020, surgeon) I think we're probably all in agreement that there is room for improvement in the way that we see the patients on their follow-up protocol. It sounds like we've all got a very similar, traditional one-size-fits-all approach to our follow-up (027, oncologist)
Responsive to need	You can bounce people back a few months if they're well, and I think we feel comfortable with that to some extent, but then get a little bit unsure of how much to keep bouncing them back (003, surgeon)
Patient-initiated follow-up being patient-centred	I think it's [patient-initiated follow-up] kind of giving them that ownership back because we've taken it for so many months doing the treatment that we need to just give it back again (043, clinical nurse specialist)
Risk-stratification	Patients who've been able to quit smoking or alcohol use, or semi reduce it significantly, might be at low risk of recurrence, and perhaps those are patients who could be on a less stringent follow-up. So, I don't know if you are going to stratify according to risk factors as well (062, surgeon)
PET-CT scan concerns	If a PET is not sensitive to pick that [recurrence] up, and I don't think it is, then where do those patients sit, patients who, potentially, have field change, who have multiple malignancies that arise within field change? Should they be excluded, or where would they fit in this pathway? (028, surgeon)

PET-CT, positron emission tomography-computed tomography.