Table 4 Preferences results

Kimman et al. 2010 [27]

The healthcare provider and contact mode were the most important characteristics of follow-up to patients;

The medical specialist was the most preferred to perform the follow-up;

Face-to-face contact was strongly preferred to telephone contact;

(4) Follow-up visits every three months were preferred over visits every 4, 6, or 12 months

NA

Heterogeneity in preference between patients was strong;

Age, education, and previous experience with follow-up characteristics influenced preferences, but treatment modality did not

Bessen et al. 2014 [28]

The most preferred scenario is a face-to-face local breast cancer follow-up clinic held every 6 months and led by a Breast Physician

NA

(1)Beyond the first 2 years from diagnosis, in the absence of a specialist led follow-up, women prefer to have their routine breast cancer follow-up by a Breast Physician (or a Breast Cancer Nurse) in a dedicated local breast cancer clinic, rather than with their local General Practitioner

(2) Drop-in clinics for the management of treatment related side effects and to provide advice to both develop and maintain good health are also highly valued by breast cancer survivors

Damery et al. 2014 [8]

Patients typically preferred appointments routinely consisting of clinical examination and chest X-ray, and for follow up to remain in secondary care rather than general practice;

The preferred scenario across the patient cohort would be 6-monthly follow-up for five years, in which a hospital doctor carries out a clinical examination and X-ray

NA

As the hypothetical risk of recurrence increased, the number of patients who would prefer a more intensive follow-up regime also increased

Murchie et al. 2016 [29]

Cancer survivors preferred continuous, face-to-face consultant-led follow-up;

Cancer survivors appeared willing to accept follow-up from specialist nurses, registrars or general practitioner provided that they are compensated by increased continuity of care, dietary advice and one-to-one counselling;

Longer appointments were valued

Telephone and web-based follow-up and group counselling, were not considered desirable

NA

Colorectal cancer survivors and melanoma would see any alternative provider for greater continuity;

Breast cancer survivors wished to see a registrar or specialist nurse;

Prostate cancer survivors wished to see a general practitioner

Wong et al. 2016 [32]

The most important attributes were expertise and familiarity of doctors with patients’ medical history, distance traveled was least likely to influence patient preferences;

Ranking of attribute importance: Expertise of the health care professional (HCP) > familiarity of the doctor with their medical history > waiting time for appointments > availability of social support > travel times to appointments

WTP:

$680 (95% CI, 470–891) for an appointment with a specialist;

$571 (95% CI, 388–754) for doctors familiar with their history;

$422 (95% CI, 262–582) for shorter waiting times;

$399 (95% CI, 249–549) to be accompanied by family/friends;

$301 (95% CI, 162–441) for shorter traveling times

Male patients had a stronger preference for accompaniment by family/friends;

The expertise of health care professionals (HCPs) was the most important attribute for patients regardless of geographic remoteness

Van et al. 2021 [30]

If the post-treatment visit was performed by the same person as treatment provider and a hand-out was provided to patients containing personalized information, the acceptance of having no additional follow-up visits (i.e. following the guidelines) would increase from 55 to 77% by patients

The choice probability of ‘No BCC follow-up according to guideline’ was 55% if the standard post-treatment visit would not be performed by the same person as the treatment provider and if patients would receive a general hand-out compared to ‘Current intensive BCC follow-up’. This choice probability of ‘No BCC follow-up according to guideline’ increased from 55% up to 77%, if the standard post-treatment visit would be performed by the same person as treatment provider and if patients were offered a personalized handout as additional information

Female patients and older dermatologists, are less willing to accept the guidelines and prefer additional follow-up visits

Li et al. 2022 [10]

Achieving very thorough follow-up contents was the most valued attribute level;

Specialist doctors are the most preferred providers followed by specialist nurses

WTP:

1423.2837 CNY (95% CI 546.57363–2299.9937) for very thorough follow-up contents;

793.10676 CNY (95% CI 359.09048–1227.123) for follow-up by specialist doctors;

648.3079 CNY (95% CI 384.33175–912.28405) for follow-up by specialist nurses;

229.76437 CNY (95% CI 64.447727–395.08101) for the face-to-face follow-up

NA

Geng et al. 2024 [31]

Older cancer patients stated a preference for follow-up by specialists over primary healthcare (PHC) providers;

(2) Ranking of attribute importance: Specialist-led follow-up with remote contact (including both counseling and regular calls) > continuity of care and the availability of a personalized follow-up plan > additional service

NA

The most important attribute for breast cancer patients was the type of follow-up provider, and a stronger preference for medication instructions;

Remote contact services were prioritized by patients with prostate and colorectal cancer;

Colorectal cancer patients had a higher utility for psychological support;

Patients who reported chronic disease and live in the city were more likely to prefer additional services for medication instructions

Senanayake et al. 2024 [6]

Age and quality of life status are associated with patient preference for types and attributes of breast cancer follow-up care;

Breast cancer with older age and lower quality of life (class 1): remained neutral regarding the team’s composition but concerned about the out-of-pocket costs per consultation;

Breast cancer younger women with higher quality of life (class 2): preferred a care team comprising specialists, nurses and general practitioners (GPs) and emphasised the importance of shared survivorship care plans

WTP:

AUD $57 for a care team consisting of medical specialists, breast cancer nurses and general practitioners;

AUD $132 for a survivorship care plan developed by the healthcare team;

AUD $221 for a survivorship plan when they were also involved in its development;

AUD $68 to avoid travelling, thus utilising telehealth services

NA