PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH: As the number of men living with prostate cancer is increasing worldwide, the requirement for follow up care also grows. This study was undertaken to evaluate nurse-led, telephone follow up, for men with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with radical radiotherapy when compared with medical follow up. METHODS AND SAMPLE: A non-randomized, two-cohort, comparative study. 169 men diagnosed with prostate cancer were recruited from outpatient clinics at a tertiary cancer centre in Australia. 83 men were recruited to cohort 1 (control) (51 low to intermediate risk; 32 high risk) and 86 to cohort 2 (intervention) (51 low to intermediate risk; 35 high risk). High risk patients, regardless of cohort, received medical follow up. Low to intermediate risk patients in cohort 2 were triaged to nurse-led review for their six month review appointment. Nurse-led follow up consisted of six monthly telephone consultations and PSA testing. MEASURES: Participants completed the Satisfaction with Consultation Scale, the Brief Distress Thermometer and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. KEY RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction on any of the study measures between the nurse-led and standard medical follow up at six months following treatment completion. However, where there was a trend towards significance (p=0.051), it favoured the nurse-led follow up regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led telephone consultation provides an acceptable model of follow-up for men diagnosed with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer. Multi-centre randomised controlled trials are needed to support the efficacy of nurse-led, telephone follow up services. Crown
PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH: As the number of men living with prostate cancer is increasing worldwide, the requirement for follow up care also grows. This study was undertaken to evaluate nurse-led, telephone follow up, for men with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with radical radiotherapy when compared with medical follow up. METHODS AND SAMPLE: A non-randomized, two-cohort, comparative study. 169 men diagnosed with prostate cancer were recruited from outpatient clinics at a tertiary cancer centre in Australia. 83 men were recruited to cohort 1 (control) (51 low to intermediate risk; 32 high risk) and 86 to cohort 2 (intervention) (51 low to intermediate risk; 35 high risk). High risk patients, regardless of cohort, received medical follow up. Low to intermediate risk patients in cohort 2 were triaged to nurse-led review for their six month review appointment. Nurse-led follow up consisted of six monthly telephone consultations and PSA testing. MEASURES: Participants completed the Satisfaction with Consultation Scale, the Brief Distress Thermometer and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. KEY RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction on any of the study measures between the nurse-led and standard medical follow up at six months following treatment completion. However, where there was a trend towards significance (p=0.051), it favoured the nurse-led follow up regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led telephone consultation provides an acceptable model of follow-up for men diagnosed with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer. Multi-centre randomised controlled trials are needed to support the efficacy of nurse-led, telephone follow up services. Crown
Authors: Hritika D Pai; Stephen Rajan Samuel; K Vijaya Kumar; Namrata S Chauhan; Charu Eapen; Alicia Olsen; Justin W L Keogh Journal: PeerJ Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 3.061
Authors: Sydney Moirangthem; Sabina Rao; Channaveerachari Naveen Kumar; Manjunatha Narayana; Neelaveni Raviprakash; Suresh Bada Math Journal: Indian J Psychol Med Date: 2017 May-Jun
Authors: Jacqueline L Bender; David Wiljer; Anna M Sawka; Richard Tsang; Nour Alkazaz; James D Brierley Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Julia Wade; Peter N Holding; Susan Bonnington; Leila Rooshenas; J Athene Lane; C Elizabeth Salter; Kate Tilling; Mark J Speakman; Simon F Brewster; Simon Evans; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Petra G Puhringer; Alicia Olsen; Mike Climstein; Sally Sargeant; Lynnette M Jones; Justin W L Keogh Journal: PeerJ Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 2.984