Literature DB >> 20148645

Follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: one strategy fits all? An investigation of patient preferences using a discrete choice experiment.

Merel L Kimman1, Benedict G C Dellaert, Liesbeth J Boersma, Philippe Lambin, Carmen D Dirksen.   

Abstract

Clinical guidelines for the follow-up after breast cancer recommend frequent outpatient clinic visits to be examined for a possible recurrence or a second primary breast tumour, and to receive information and psychosocial support. However, needs and preferences for follow-up may differ between patients, raising the question whether the current 'one size fits all' approach is appropriate. This study explored patients' preferences for follow-up. Patients and methods. A discrete choice experiment survey with 16 choice tasks was filled out by 331 breast cancer patients. Each choice task consisted of two hypothetical follow-up scenarios for the first year after treatment, described by levels of the following characteristics; attendance at an educational group programme, frequency of visits, waiting time, contact mode, and type of healthcare provider. Results. 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, but a combination of the medical specialist and breast care nurse alternating was also acceptable to patients. Face-to-face contact was strongly preferred to telephone contact. Follow-up visits every three months were preferred over visits every four, six, or 12 months. Heterogeneity in preference between patients was strong, especially for the healthcare provider and attendance at an educational group programme. Age, education, and previous experience with follow-up characteristics influenced preferences, but treatment modality did not. Conclusion. The results of this study show that overall patient satisfaction would not differ significantly if patients have follow-up by medical specialist and breast care nurse alternating compared to follow-up by a medical specialist only. Furthermore, we found heterogeneity in preferences for most attributes, indicating that one strategy does not fit all. Individualised follow-up seems to offer the potential for significant increases in patient satisfaction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20148645     DOI: 10.3109/02841860903536002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Oncol        ISSN: 0284-186X            Impact factor:   4.089


  18 in total

1.  Increased primary healthcare utilisation among women with a history of breast cancer.

Authors:  Carriene Roorda; Annette J Berendsen; Feikje Groenhof; Klaas van der Meer; Geertruida H de Bock
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Follow-up Reality for Breast Cancer Patients - Standardised Survey of Patients and Physicians and Analysis of Treatment Data.

Authors:  S Feiten; J Dünnebacke; V Friesenhahn; J Heymanns; H Köppler; R Meister; J Thomalla; C van Roye; D Wey; R Weide
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 2.915

3.  Patient preferences and treatment adherence among women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Marco daCosta DiBonaventura; Ronda Copher; Enrique Basurto; Claudio Faria; Rose Lorenzo
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2014-10

Review 4.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Michael D Clark; Domino Determann; Stavros Petrou; Domenico Moro; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Patients' preferences for post-treatment breast cancer follow-up in primary care vs. secondary care: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Carriene Roorda; Geertruida H de Bock; Christian Scholing; Klaas van der Meer; Marjolein Y Berger; Marlieke de Fouw; Annette J Berendsen
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Understanding rational non-adherence to medications. A discrete choice experiment in a community sample in Australia.

Authors:  Tracey-Lea Laba; Jo-Anne Brien; Stephen Jan
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 2.497

Review 7.  Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide.

Authors:  Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Bas Donkers; Marcel F Jonker; Elly A Stolk
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  The Role of Patients' Age on Their Preferences for Choosing Additional Blood Pressure-Lowering Drugs: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Patients with Diabetes.

Authors:  Sieta T de Vries; Folgerdiena M de Vries; Thijs Dekker; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Dick de Zeeuw; Adelita V Ranchor; Petra Denig
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  What sort of follow-up services would Australian breast cancer survivors prefer if we could no longer offer long-term specialist-based care? A discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  T Bessen; G Chen; J Street; J Eliott; J Karnon; D Keefe; J Ratcliffe
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 10.  Follow-up care for breast cancer survivors: improving patient outcomes.

Authors:  Ishveen Chopra; Avijeet Chopra
Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas       Date:  2014-08-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.