Following initial treatment for gynaecological cancer, patients transition to follow-up care [1,2]. This care has two main objectives: 1) timely detection of potential cancer recurrence and 2) providing aftercare to manage side effects and long-term complications that can significantly impact a woman's1 quality of life (QoL) [1,3].

In many countries, current follow-up care is guided by protocols developed by professional healthcare organisations [[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]]. These protocols involve a schedule of hospital-based consultations with healthcare providers, primarily medical specialists. Consultations may consist of evaluation of symptoms, a physical examination and, if indicated, laboratory tests and imaging. The frequency of consultations gradually decreases over time. Patients might have up to eight consultations in the first two years, followed by two to three consultations per year in the subsequent years, until the fifth year [[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]].

The rationale for current hospital-based follow-up is based on the premise that timely detection of cancer recurrences increases the likelihood of successful intervention, ultimately improving survival outcomes. However, there is limited evidence supporting this premise, and the effectiveness of these intensive, standardised follow-up protocols has come under scrutiny [[1], [2], [3],[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]]. Importantly, patients indicate that their needs during aftercare are often neglected, adversely impacting their quality of life [17,18]. In an era where resources in healthcare are under pressure, along with a growing emphasis on patient-empowerment and the provision of appropriate care, it is time to reconsider current follow-up practices for gynaecological cancer survivors [19,20].

Currently, there is a growing number of studies aimed at improving follow-up care in gynaecological oncology, exploring new approaches. However, despite this growing body of literature, it remains unclear if these new follow-up models are effective in improving patient and care outcomes, compared to current follow-up care. The aim of this scoping review is to map available evidence on alternative approaches to follow-up care in gynaecological oncology, focusing on effectiveness when compared to current follow-up.