Nicola J Davies1, Lynn Batehup. 1. National Cancer Survivorship Initiative, Self-Management Workstream, Macmillan Cancer Support, London, England. NDavies@macmillan.org.uk
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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