PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare conventional medical follow-up with follow-up containing additional nursing consultations regarding the psychosocial adjustment and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of head and neck cancer patients. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental design, patients were enrolled consecutively into two groups. Experimental care covered six 30-min bimonthly nursing follow-up consultations during the first year posttreatment. Data were collected at posttreatment months 1 (baseline), 6, and 12 for both groups. RESULTS: The intervention group was significantly worse at baseline, based on two of the seven adjustment scales and on the majority of HRQOL scales. However, their outcome at 6 and 12 months was consistent with that of the group which received conventional follow-up. Thus, the intervention group had a larger improvement in scores, and this was significant for one of the seven adjustment scales and 19 of the 33 HRQOL scales at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Most of the differences in HRQOL scales were clinically relevant at 6 months. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that nurse-led consultations for patients with head and neck cancer have a positive effect, primarily with respect to HRQOL. Nurse-led follow-up leads to a similar psychosocial adjustment as conventional follow-up, even among patients who showed worse performance at the start of follow-up. Thus, nurse-led follow-up may be a cost-effective way to improve follow-up care for this patient group.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare conventional medical follow-up with follow-up containing additional nursing consultations regarding the psychosocial adjustment and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of head and neck cancerpatients. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental design, patients were enrolled consecutively into two groups. Experimental care covered six 30-min bimonthly nursing follow-up consultations during the first year posttreatment. Data were collected at posttreatment months 1 (baseline), 6, and 12 for both groups. RESULTS: The intervention group was significantly worse at baseline, based on two of the seven adjustment scales and on the majority of HRQOL scales. However, their outcome at 6 and 12 months was consistent with that of the group which received conventional follow-up. Thus, the intervention group had a larger improvement in scores, and this was significant for one of the seven adjustment scales and 19 of the 33 HRQOL scales at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Most of the differences in HRQOL scales were clinically relevant at 6 months. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that nurse-led consultations for patients with head and neck cancer have a positive effect, primarily with respect to HRQOL. Nurse-led follow-up leads to a similar psychosocial adjustment as conventional follow-up, even among patients who showed worse performance at the start of follow-up. Thus, nurse-led follow-up may be a cost-effective way to improve follow-up care for this patient group.
Authors: K Bjordal; A de Graeff; P M Fayers; E Hammerlid; C van Pottelsberghe; D Curran; M Ahlner-Elmqvist; E J Maher; J W Meyza; A Brédart; A L Söderholm; J J Arraras; J S Feine; H Abendstein; R P Morton; T Pignon; P Huguenin; A Bottomly; S Kaasa Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: K Bjordal; E Hammerlid; M Ahlner-Elmqvist; A de Graeff; M Boysen; J F Evensen; A Biörklund; J R de Leeuw; P M Fayers; M Jannert; T Westin; S Kaasa Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mary Wells; Peter T Donnan; Lena Sharp; Caroline Ackland; Janice Fletcher; John A Dewar Journal: J Clin Nurs Date: 2007-12-18 Impact factor: 3.036
Authors: E M L Verschuur; E W Steyerberg; H W Tilanus; S Polinder; M-L Essink-Bot; K T C Tran; A van der Gaast; L P S Stassen; E J Kuipers; P D Siersema Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-12-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jane Turner; Patsy Yates; Lizbeth Kenny; Louisa G Gordon; Bryan Burmeister; Brett G M Hughes; Alexandra L McCarthy; Chris Perry; Raymond J Chan; Alana Paviour; Helen Skerman; Martin Batstone; Lisa Mackenzie Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Bojoura Schouten; Bert Avau; Geertruida Trudy E Bekkering; Patrick Vankrunkelsven; Jeroen Mebis; Johan Hellings; Ann Van Hecke Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-03-26
Authors: Petr Szturz; Carl Van Laer; Christian Simon; Dirk Van Gestel; Jean Bourhis; Jan B Vermorken Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: I C van der Meulen; A M May; J R J de Leeuw; R Koole; M Oosterom; G-J Hordijk; W J G Ros Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 7.640