The role of routine follow-up visits of prostate cancer survivors in addressing supportive care and information needs: a qualitative observational study

Wollersheim, Barbara M.; Helweg, Ellis; Tillier, Corinne; Muilekom, H.A.M. van; Blok, Willem de; Poel, Henk G. van der; Asselt, Kristel M. van; Boekhout, Annelies H.

doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06222-9

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with previous studies, our results also indicated that GPs discussed the psychosocial context of cancer with patients, while not all specialists reported doing so [16,24]. Besides, patients mentioned that the GP-patient relationship is more personal.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Specialist versus Primary Care Prostate Cancer Follow-Up: A Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Wollersheim

Asselt

Pos

et al. 2022

Cancers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Specialist versus Primary Care Prostate Cancer Follow-Up: A Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Wollersheim

Asselt

Pos

et al. 2022

Cancers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Healthcare providers provided space to talk about approximately half of all cues and concerns (54%). These results are consistent with those of other qualitative observational studies [26,27], although space was provided less frequently (approximately 40%) in an observational study among cancer survivors in Brazil [28]. A possible explanation for this difference is that we coded unpleasant and bothersome symptoms as part of the patients' cues and concerns.…”

Section: Comparison To Existing Literaturesupporting

confidence: 88%

“…The VR-CoDES have been previously used to identify cues and concerns in patients with other types of cancer, who may experience different types of problems during follow-up than those experienced by colon cancer patients [26][27][28]. The questions, cues, and concerns identified in this study largely overlapped those described in quantitative research [5][6][7].…”

Section: Comparison To Existing Literaturementioning

confidence: 87%

Addressing colon cancer patients’ needs during follow-up consultations at the outpatient clinic: a multicenter qualitative observational study

Vos

Duineveld

Miltenburg

et al. 2022

Support Care Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To describe colon cancer patients’ needs and how healthcare providers respond to these needs during routine follow-up consultations in hospital. Methods A multicenter qualitative observational study, consisting of follow-up consultations by surgeons and specialized oncology nurses. Consultations were analyzed according to Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences. Patients’ questions, cues, and concerns were derived from the data and categorized into supportive care domains. Responses of healthcare providers were defined as providing or reducing space for disclosure. Patient satisfaction with care was measured with a short questionnaire. Results Consultations with 30 patients were observed. Questions typically centered around the health system and information domain (i.e., follow-up schedule and test results; 92%). Cues and concerns were mostly associated with the physical and daily living domain (i.e., experiencing symptoms and difficulties resuming daily routine; 43%), followed by health system and information (i.e., miscommunication or lack of clarity about follow-up; 28%), and psychological domain (i.e., fear of recurrence and complications; 28%). Problems in the sexuality domain hardly ever arose (0%). Healthcare providers provided space to talk about half of the cues and concerns (54%). Responses to cancer-related versus unrelated problems were similar. Overall, the patients were satisfied with the information and communication received. Conclusions Colon cancer patients express various needs during consultations. Healthcare providers respond to different types of needs in a similar fashion. We encourage clinicians to discuss all supportive care domains, including sexuality, and provide space for further disclosure. General practitioners are trained to provide holistic care and could play a greater role.

show abstract

“…Experiencing distress is associated with poor quality of life and unmet needs following cancer treatment 27 . Much of this distress comes from worry about the recurrence of cancer as well as long‐term side effects, which can be managed during follow‐up care 29,30 . To optimize VFU for cancer patients, we need to identify which patients and contexts would benefit from VFU.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual follow‐up care among breast and prostate cancer patients during and beyond the COVID‐19 pandemic: Association with distress

Bender,

Scruton,

Wong

et al. 2024

Cancer Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to investigate associations between self‐reported distress (anxiety/depression) and satisfaction with and desire for virtual follow‐up (VFU) care among cancer patients during and beyond the COVID‐19 pandemic.MethodsBreast and prostate cancer patients receiving VFU at an urban cancer centre in Toronto, Canada completed an online survey on their sociodemographic, clinical, and technology, characteristics and experience with and views on VFU. EQ5D‐5 L was used to assess distress. Statistical models adjusted for age, gender, education, income and Internet confidence.ResultsOf 352 participants, average age was 65 years, 48% were women,79% were within 5 years of treatment completion, 84% had college/university education and 74% were confident Internet users. Nearly, all (98%) had a virtual visit via phone and 22% had a virtual visit via video. The majority of patients (86%) were satisfied with VFU and 70% agreed that they would like VFU options after the COVID‐19 pandemic. Participants who reported distress and who were not confident using the Internet for health purposes were significantly less likely to be satisfied with VFU (OR = 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2–0.8 and OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.09–0.38, respectively) and were less likely to desire VFU option after the COVID‐19 pandemic (OR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.30–0.82 and OR = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23–0.70, respectively).ConclusionsThe majority of respondents were satisfied with VFU and would like VFU options after the COVID‐19 pandemic. Future research should determine how to optimize VFU options for cancer patients who are distressed and who are less confident using virtual care technology.

show abstract

The role of routine follow-up visits of prostate cancer survivors in addressing supportive care and information needs: a qualitative observational study

Cited by 9 publications

References 29 publications

Specialist versus Primary Care Prostate Cancer Follow-Up: A Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Specialist versus Primary Care Prostate Cancer Follow-Up: A Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Addressing colon cancer patients’ needs during follow-up consultations at the outpatient clinic: a multicenter qualitative observational study

Virtual follow‐up care among breast and prostate cancer patients during and beyond the COVID‐19 pandemic: Association with distress

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About