OBJECTIVE: To develop an understanding of experiences of follow-up in patients with prostate cancer, to seek explanations as to why men's needs might not be well met, and explore views on the possible role of primary care in follow-up. The experiences of these patients, and views on the delivery of follow-up care, have been relatively neglected compared to those diagnosed with other cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 35 patients were recruited from 20 practices across three regions in the UK. Maximum variation was sought by purposely sampling by age (59-82 years), treatment, length (0.75-14 years) and mode of follow-up. RESULTS: Patients' descriptions of the content and organization of follow-up showed the shortcomings of follow-up, which included system failings causing patients to be lost to follow-up, and unmet psychosexual needs. Patients were mainly positive about the prospect of follow-up taking place outside the hospital setting. However, some expressed concerns about current follow-up practices and suggested several improvements that need considering if primary care were to take a greater role. CONCLUSION: This study identified some general deficiencies with the current system of follow-up, and our data indicate that primary care could have a role in addressing some of these.
OBJECTIVE: To develop an understanding of experiences of follow-up in patients with prostate cancer, to seek explanations as to why men's needs might not be well met, and explore views on the possible role of primary care in follow-up. The experiences of these patients, and views on the delivery of follow-up care, have been relatively neglected compared to those diagnosed with other cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 35 patients were recruited from 20 practices across three regions in the UK. Maximum variation was sought by purposely sampling by age (59-82 years), treatment, length (0.75-14 years) and mode of follow-up. RESULTS:Patients' descriptions of the content and organization of follow-up showed the shortcomings of follow-up, which included system failings causing patients to be lost to follow-up, and unmet psychosexual needs. Patients were mainly positive about the prospect of follow-up taking place outside the hospital setting. However, some expressed concerns about current follow-up practices and suggested several improvements that need considering if primary care were to take a greater role. CONCLUSION: This study identified some general deficiencies with the current system of follow-up, and our data indicate that primary care could have a role in addressing some of these.
Authors: Raymond G Deobald; Eva S W Cheng; Yoo-Joung Ko; Frances C Wright; Paul J Karanicolas Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Judith A Meiklejohn; Alexander Mimery; Jennifer H Martin; Ross Bailie; Gail Garvey; Euan T Walpole; Jon Adams; Daniel Williamson; Patricia C Valery Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Marian Andrei Stanciu; Caroline Morris; Matt Makin; Eila Watson; Jenna Bulger; Richard Evans; Julia Hiscock; Zoë Hoare; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; Richard David Neal; Clare Wilkinson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jon Emery; Juanita Doorey; Michael Jefford; Madeleine King; Marie Pirotta; Dickon Hayne; Andrew Martin; Lyndal Trevena; Tee Lim; Roger Constable; Cynthia Hawks; Amelia Hyatt; Akhlil Hamid; John Violet; Suki Gill; Mark Frydenberg; Penelope Schofield Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Eila Watson; Peter Rose; Emma Frith; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Christof Kastner; Simon Russell; Fiona M Walter; Sara Faithfull; Jane Wolstenholme; Rafael Perera; David Weller; Christine Campbell; Clare Wilkinson; Richard Neal; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Hugh Butcher; Mike Matthews Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: A J L King; M Evans; T H M Moore; C Paterson; D Sharp; R Persad; A L Huntley Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 2.520