Laura Ashley1, Helen Jones, Galina Velikova, Penny Wright. 1. Psychosocial Oncology and Clinical Practice Research Group, University of Leeds, St James's Institute of Oncology, Beckett Street, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK. l.j.ashley@leeds.ac.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE: A priority of the UK National Cancer Survivorship Initiative is to increase collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) longitudinally post-diagnosis. This study aimed to gather cancer patients' and clinicians' opinions and preferences about the best time, in the secondary care pathway, to approach patients about joining longitudinal observational PROMs-based (LO-PROMs) research. METHODS: The sample comprised 15 patients with non-metastatic breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, and 15 clinicians including surgeons, oncologists and nurse specialists. Patients and clinicians participated in one face-to-face topic-guided audio-recorded interview. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Patients did not want to be approached about LO-PROMs research early in the care pathway, near diagnosis and treatment planning or before any surgery and its results. Patients felt that LO-PROMs research is best introduced from the time people are 'settled' on (post-surgical) treatment regimens, provided they are coping well emotionally and not experiencing significant physical side effects; patients emphasised variability in people's experience of and response to cancer and treatment. Clinicians also advised against approach near diagnosis, although generally recommended initiating recruitment somewhat sooner than patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients expressed strong homogeneous preferences and ideally wanted to be approached about LO-PROMs research when their initial fears and anxiety about cancer treatment and survival had diminished, and they felt some sense of certainty and optimism about the future. As the timeline of clinical events varies, maximising recruitment may mean approaching patients at varied time points post-diagnosis. Further recruitment implications are discussed.
PURPOSE: A priority of the UK National Cancer Survivorship Initiative is to increase collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) longitudinally post-diagnosis. This study aimed to gather cancerpatients' and clinicians' opinions and preferences about the best time, in the secondary care pathway, to approach patients about joining longitudinal observational PROMs-based (LO-PROMs) research. METHODS: The sample comprised 15 patients with non-metastatic breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, and 15 clinicians including surgeons, oncologists and nurse specialists. Patients and clinicians participated in one face-to-face topic-guided audio-recorded interview. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS:Patients did not want to be approached about LO-PROMs research early in the care pathway, near diagnosis and treatment planning or before any surgery and its results. Patients felt that LO-PROMs research is best introduced from the time people are 'settled' on (post-surgical) treatment regimens, provided they are coping well emotionally and not experiencing significant physical side effects; patients emphasised variability in people's experience of and response to cancer and treatment. Clinicians also advised against approach near diagnosis, although generally recommended initiating recruitment somewhat sooner than patients. CONCLUSIONS:Patients expressed strong homogeneous preferences and ideally wanted to be approached about LO-PROMs research when their initial fears and anxiety about cancer treatment and survival had diminished, and they felt some sense of certainty and optimism about the future. As the timeline of clinical events varies, maximising recruitment may mean approaching patients at varied time points post-diagnosis. Further recruitment implications are discussed.
Authors: Joanne Francis Travaglia; Peter Ivan Nugus; David Greenfield; Johanna Irene Westbrook; Jeffrey Braithwaite Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Tenbroeck Smith; Kevin D Stein; C Christina Mehta; Chiewkwei Kaw; James L Kepner; Trent Buskirk; Jeremy Stafford; Frank Baker Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Marilyn L Kwan; Christine B Ambrosone; Marion M Lee; Janice Barlow; Sarah E Krathwohl; Isaac Joshua Ergas; Christine H Ashley; Julie R Bittner; Jeanne Darbinian; Keren Stronach; Bette J Caan; Warren Davis; Susan E Kutner; Charles P Quesenberry; Carol P Somkin; Barbara Sternfeld; John K Wiencke; Shichun Zheng; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: V Jenkins; D Farewell; L Batt; T Maughan; L Branston; C Langridge; L Parlour; V Farewell; L Fallowfield Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: L Ashley; H Jones; J Thomas; D Forman; A Newsham; E Morris; O Johnson; G Velikova; P Wright Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: T G Smith; M E Dunn; K Y Levin; S P Tsakraklides; S A Mitchell; L V van de Poll-Franse; K C Ward; C L Wiggins; X C Wu; M Hurlbert; N K Aaronson Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Paul Henry Yerrell; David Roder; Margaret Cargo; Rachel Reilly; David Banham; Jasmine May Micklem; Kim Morey; Harold Bundamurra Stewart; Janet Stajic; Michael Norris; Alex Brown Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Laura Ashley; Helen Jones; James Thomas; Alex Newsham; Amy Downing; Eva Morris; Julia Brown; Galina Velikova; David Forman; Penny Wright Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Valerie Jenkins; Ryan Thwaites; Mara Cercignani; Sandra Sacre; Neil Harrison; Hefina Whiteley-Jones; Lisa Mullen; Giselle Chamberlain; Kevin Davies; Charles Zammit; Lucy Matthews; Helena Harder Journal: Springerplus Date: 2016-03-31