Literature DB >> 21253881

Towards a personalised approach to aftercare: a review of cancer follow-up in the UK.

Nicola J Davies1, Lynn Batehup.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Due to growth in cancer survivorship and subsequent resource limitations, the current UK position of follow-up services is unsustainable. With people living longer after a cancer diagnosis, supported self-management for ongoing treatment-related chronic conditions is a fundamental component of aftercare services. Alternative models to traditional hospital aftercare require consideration in terms of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
METHODS: 'Evidence to Inform the Cancer Reform Strategy: The Clinical Effectiveness of Follow-Up Services after Treatment for Cancer' (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2007) has been updated using a number of quality-controlled databases. Correspondence with experts was also sought to identify current initiatives. RESULT: The review highlights a shift towards patient empowerment via individualised and group education programmes aimed at increasing survivor's ability to better manage their condition and the effects of treatment, allowing for self-referral or rapid access to health services when needed. The role of specialist nurses as key facilitators of supportive aftercare is emphasised, as is a move towards technology-based aftercare in the form of telephone or web-based services.
CONCLUSIONS: The challenge will be replacing traditional clinic follow-up with alternative methods in a cost-effective way that is either as equally effective, or more so. To establish this, more rigorous trials are needed, with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up assessments. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Increasing patient confidence to initiate follow-up specific to their needs is likely to increase the workload of primary care providers, who will need training for this.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21253881     DOI: 10.1007/s11764-010-0165-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Surviv        ISSN: 1932-2259            Impact factor:   4.442


  30 in total

Review 1.  Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  M Jeffery; B E Hickey; P N Hider
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-01-24

2.  An interim analysis of recruitment to the COLOFOL trial.

Authors:  P Wille-Jørgensen; S Laurberg; L Påhlman; L Carriquiry; N Lundqvist; K Smedh; M Svanfeldt; J Bengtson
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.788

3.  An improved approach to followup care for the urological patient: drop-in group medical appointments.

Authors:  Sophie G Fletcher; Sean J Clark; Dana L Overstreet; William D Steers
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Follow-up cost of breast cancer patients with localized disease after primary treatment: a randomized trial.

Authors:  R Kokko; M Hakama; K Holli
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Evidence suggesting that a chronic disease self-management program can improve health status while reducing hospitalization: a randomized trial.

Authors:  K R Lorig; D S Sobel; A L Stewart; B W Brown; A Bandura; P Ritter; V M Gonzalez; D D Laurent; H R Holman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  A randomised controlled trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive versus no scheduled follow-up in patients who have undergone resection for colorectal cancer with curative intent.

Authors:  David Mant; Alastair Gray; Siân Pugh; Helen Campbell; Stephen George; Alice Fuller; Bethany Shinkins; Andrea Corkhill; Jane Mellor; Elizabeth Dixon; Louisa Little; Rafael Perera-Salazar; John Primrose
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 4.014

7.  Cost-benefit analysis of a follow-up program in patients with breast cancer: a randomized prospective study.

Authors:  Amparo Oltra; A Santaballa; B Munárriz; M Pastor; J Montalar
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.431

8.  Nurse-led follow-up on demand or by a physician after breast cancer surgery: a randomised study.

Authors:  I-L Koinberg; B Fridlund; G-B Engholm; L Holmberg
Journal:  Eur J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.398

9.  Mechanisms of improved survival from intensive followup in colorectal cancer: a hypothesis.

Authors:  A G Renehan; M Egger; M P Saunders; S T O'Dwyer
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-02-14       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Automated telephone follow-up after breast cancer: an acceptability and feasibility pilot study.

Authors:  D A Montgomery; K Krupa; C Wilson; T G Cooke
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-09-02       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  22 in total

1.  Promotion of self-management for post treatment cancer survivors: evaluation of a risk-adapted visit.

Authors:  Carol A Rosenberg; Carol Flanagan; Bruce Brockstein; Jennifer C Obel; Leon H Dragon; Douglas E Merkel; Elaine L Wade; Teresa M Law; Janardan D Khandekar; Thomas A Hensing
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 4.442

Review 2.  Nurse-led follow-up care for cancer patients: what is known and what is needed.

Authors:  Jacqueline de Leeuw; Maria Larsson
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Unmet supportive care needs of breast, colorectal and testicular cancer survivors in the first 8 months post primary treatment: A prospective longitudinal survey.

Authors:  Lynn Batehup; Heather Gage; Peter Williams; Alison Richardson; Katerina Porter; Peter Simmonds; Elizabeth Lowson; Lynne Dodson; Nicola Davies; Richard Wagland; Jane Winter; Andrew Turner; Jessica Corner
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2021-08-22       Impact factor: 2.328

Review 4.  Survivorship care plans: a work in progress.

Authors:  H M L Daudt; C van Mossel; D L Dennis; L Leitz; H C Watson; J J Tanliao
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.677

5.  Comparing the costs of three prostate cancer follow-up strategies: a cost minimisation analysis.

Authors:  Alison M Pearce; Fay Ryan; Frances J Drummond; Audrey Alforque Thomas; Aileen Timmons; Linda Sharp
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Consequences, control and appraisal: cues and barriers to engaging in self-management among people affected by colorectal cancer - a secondary analysis of qualitative data.

Authors:  Lisa A Kidd
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  'We do need to keep some human touch'-Patient and clinician experiences of ovarian cancer follow-up and the potential for an electronic patient-reported outcome pathway: A qualitative interview study.

Authors:  Fiona Kennedy; Leanne Shearsmith; Marie Holmes; Rosemary Peacock; Oana C Lindner; Molly Megson; Galina Velikova
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2022-02-10       Impact factor: 2.328

Review 8.  Implementing improved post-treatment care for cancer survivors in England, with reflections from Australia, Canada and the USA.

Authors:  M Jefford; J Rowland; E Grunfeld; M Richards; J Maher; A Glaser
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Qualitative analysis of patients' feedback from a PROMs survey of cancer patients in England.

Authors:  Jessica Corner; Richard Wagland; Adam Glaser; Sir Mike Richards
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors.

Authors:  Beverley L Høeg; Pernille E Bidstrup; Randi V Karlsen; Anne Sofie Friberg; Vanna Albieri; Susanne O Dalton; Lena Saltbæk; Klaus Kaae Andersen; Trine Allerslev Horsboel; Christoffer Johansen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-11-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.