Purpose In this study, we explored how patients experience current information provision and decision-making about post-treatment surveillance after breast cancer. Furthermore, we assessed patients’ perspectives regarding less intensive surveillance in case of a low risk of recurrence. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 women in the post-treatment surveillance trajectory in seven Dutch teaching hospitals. Results Although the majority of participants indicated a desire for shared decision-making (SDM) about post-treatment surveillance, participants experienced no SDM. Information provision was often suboptimal and unstructured. Participants were open for using risk information in decision-making, but hesitant towards less intensive surveillance. Perceived advantages of less intensive surveillance were: less distressing moments, leaving the patient role behind, and lower burden. Disadvantages were: fewer moments for reassurance, fear of missing recurrences, and a higher threshold for aftercare for side effects. Conclusions SDM about post-treatment surveillance is desirable. Although women are hesitant about less intensive surveillance, they are open to the use of personalised risk assessment for recurrences in decision-making about surveillance. Implications for Cancer Survivors To facilitate SDM about post-treatment surveillance, the timing and content of information provision should be improved. Risk information should be provided in an accessible and understandable way. Moreover, fear of cancer recurrence and other personal considerations should be addressed in the process of SDM.

Objective: Follow-up after breast cancer can be divided into surveillance and aftercare. It remains unclear how follow-up can ideally be organised from the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs). The aim of this study was to gain insight in the organisation of follow-up in seven Dutch teaching hospitals and to identify best practices and opportunities for improvement of breast cancer (all stages) follow-up as proposed by HCPs.Methods: Semi-structured in-depth group interviews were performed, one in each of the participating hospitals, with in total 16 HCPs and 2 patient advocates. To describe the organisation of follow-up, transcripts were analysed using a deductive approach. Best practices and opportunities were derived using an inductive approach.Results: Variation was found in the organisation of aftercare, especially in timing, frequency, and disciplines of involved HCPs. Less variation was observed for surveillance, which was guided by the national guideline. Best practices focused on case management and adequate collaboration between HCPs of different disciplines.Mentioned opportunities were improving the structured monitoring of patients' needs and a comprehensive guideline for organisation and content of aftercare.Conclusions: Variation in follow-up existed between hospitals. Shared decisionmaking (SDM) about surveillance is desirable to ensure that surveillance matches the patient needs, preferences, and personal risk for recurrences.

Background Patient involvement in discharge planning of patients with stroke can be accomplished by providing personalized outcome information and promoting shared decision-making. The aim of this study was to develop a patient decision aid (PtDA) for discharge planning of hospitalized patients with stroke. Methods A convergent mixed methods design was used, starting with needs assessments among patients with stroke and health care professionals (HCPs). Results of these assessments were used to develop the PtDA with integrated outcome information in several co-creation sessions. Subsequently, acceptability and usability were tested to optimize the PtDA. Development was guided by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria. Results In total, 74 patients and 111 HCPs participated in this study. A three-component PtDA was developed, consisting of: 1) a printed consultation sheet to introduce the options for discharge destinations, containing information that can be specified for each individual patient; 2) an online information and deliberation tool to support patient education and clarification of patient values, containing an integrated “patients-like-me” model with outcome information about discharge destinations; 3) a summary sheet to support actual decision-making during consultation, containing the patient’s values and preferences concerning discharge planning. In the acceptability test, all qualifying and certifying IPDAS criteria were fulfilled. The usability test showed that patients and HCPs highly appreciated the PtDA with integrated outcome information. Conclusions The developed PtDA was found acceptable and usable by patients and HCPs and is currently under investigation in a clinical trial to determine its effectiveness.