BACKGROUND: Little is known about the value of long-term follow-up for localised cutaneous melanoma from the patients' perspective. This study aimed to explore the benefits and potential downsides of follow-up; feelings about changes to frequency of follow-up, and patient-centred recommendations for improving follow-up care. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of 29 in-depth interviews conducted with Australian patients undergoing long-term follow-up after surgical treatment of stage I/II melanoma. RESULTS: Patient-perceived benefits of follow-up included reassurance, early detection of new melanomas and non-melanoma skin cancers, education about skin self-examination, the opportunity to ask questions, and reinforcement of 'sunsafe' behaviours. Downsides included anxiety leading up to and during follow-up visits; inconvenience of travel to attend visits; and lost work time. Patients varied in their engagement with skin self-examination, and their views on multiple skin excisions, but highly valued access to specialists for unscheduled visits. Most patients felt their follow-up intervals could be extended to 12 months if recommended by their clinician. CONCLUSION: The benefits and potential downsides of follow-up should be discussed with patients when deciding on a melanoma follow-up plan to achieve a balance between inducing additional patient anxiety and providing reassurance. Follow-up intervals of 12 months appear to be acceptable to patients.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the value of long-term follow-up for localised cutaneous melanoma from the patients' perspective. This study aimed to explore the benefits and potential downsides of follow-up; feelings about changes to frequency of follow-up, and patient-centred recommendations for improving follow-up care. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of 29 in-depth interviews conducted with Australian patients undergoing long-term follow-up after surgical treatment of stage I/II melanoma. RESULTS:Patient-perceived benefits of follow-up included reassurance, early detection of new melanomas and non-melanoma skin cancers, education about skin self-examination, the opportunity to ask questions, and reinforcement of 'sunsafe' behaviours. Downsides included anxiety leading up to and during follow-up visits; inconvenience of travel to attend visits; and lost work time. Patients varied in their engagement with skin self-examination, and their views on multiple skin excisions, but highly valued access to specialists for unscheduled visits. Most patients felt their follow-up intervals could be extended to 12 months if recommended by their clinician. CONCLUSION: The benefits and potential downsides of follow-up should be discussed with patients when deciding on a melanoma follow-up plan to achieve a balance between inducing additional patientanxiety and providing reassurance. Follow-up intervals of 12 months appear to be acceptable to patients.
Authors: Wei-Yin Lim; Rachael L Morton; Robin M Turner; Marisa C Jenkins; Pascale Guitera; Les Irwig; Angela C Webster; Mbathio Dieng; Robyn P M Saw; Donald Low; Cynthia Low; Katy J L Bell Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Mbathio Dieng; Nadine A Kasparian; Rachael L Morton; Graham J Mann; Phyllis Butow; Scott Menzies; Daniel S J Costa; Anne E Cust Journal: BMC Psychol Date: 2015-07-11
Authors: Wei-Yin Lim; Robin M Turner; Rachael L Morton; Marisa C Jenkins; Les Irwig; Angela C Webster; Mbathio Dieng; Robyn P M Saw; Pascale Guitera; Donald Low; Cynthia Low; Katy J L Bell Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Deonna M Ackermann; Amelia K Smit; Monika Janda; Cathelijne H van Kemenade; Mbathio Dieng; Rachael L Morton; Robin M Turner; Anne E Cust; Les Irwig; Jolyn K Hersch; Pascale Guitera; H Peter Soyer; Victoria Mar; Robyn P M Saw; Donald Low; Cynthia Low; Dorothy Drabarek; David Espinoza; Jon Emery; Peter Murchie; John F Thompson; Richard A Scolyer; Anthony Azzi; Alister Lilleyman; Katy J L Bell Journal: Trials Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Lucie Rychetnik; Rachael L Morton; Kirsten McCaffery; John F Thompson; Scott W Menzies; Les Irwig Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Samantha Damude; Josette E H M Hoekstra-Weebers; Anne Brecht Francken; Sylvia Ter Meulen; Esther Bastiaannet; Harald J Hoekstra Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mbathio Dieng; N A Kasparian; Shab Mireskandari; Phyllis Butow; Daniel Costa; Rachael Morton; Graham Mann; Scott Menzies; Anne Cust Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 2.692