Anna Cox1, Sara Faithfull. 1. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Duke of Kent Building, Stag Hill Campus, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7TE, UK. a.cox@surrey.ac.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE: The concept of providing personalised care plans for cancer survivors is receiving increasing attention; a recognised element of a care plan is to provide an indication of the risks and consequences of treatment. This paper reports health care professional (HCP) response to providing cancer survivors with information on potential late effects of their cancer treatment. METHODS: Eighteen HCPs from five cancer centres and three general practices in the UK completed semi-structured interviews which were digitally recorded, transcribed and qualitatively analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: HCPs' view of health care was that it is currently focused on acute care and needs are responded to as they may arise, including those which are late effects of cancer treatments. The concept of pre-empting a discussion of potential late effects during the survivorship phase was felt to be discordant with this approach and could impact on adjustment to life after cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Providing cancer survivors with information on potential late effects requires further consideration. Evidence for survivor preference for late effect information and the benefit afforded to survivors who receive it could inform the practice of HCPs. If a culture of proactivity is to be encouraged regarding discussions of future potential risk, HCPs may need support in considering ways of presenting survivors with reality whilst being mindful of their need to retain hope during the survivorship phase.
PURPOSE: The concept of providing personalised care plans for cancer survivors is receiving increasing attention; a recognised element of a care plan is to provide an indication of the risks and consequences of treatment. This paper reports health care professional (HCP) response to providing cancer survivors with information on potential late effects of their cancer treatment. METHODS: Eighteen HCPs from five cancer centres and three general practices in the UK completed semi-structured interviews which were digitally recorded, transcribed and qualitatively analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: HCPs' view of health care was that it is currently focused on acute care and needs are responded to as they may arise, including those which are late effects of cancer treatments. The concept of pre-empting a discussion of potential late effects during the survivorship phase was felt to be discordant with this approach and could impact on adjustment to life after cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Providing cancer survivors with information on potential late effects requires further consideration. Evidence for survivor preference for late effect information and the benefit afforded to survivors who receive it could inform the practice of HCPs. If a culture of proactivity is to be encouraged regarding discussions of future potential risk, HCPs may need support in considering ways of presenting survivors with reality whilst being mindful of their need to retain hope during the survivorship phase.
Authors: Siri L Hess; Inga M Jóhannsdóttir; Hanne Hamre; Cecilie E Kiserud; Jon H Loge; Sophie D Fosså Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Bridget M Cavanagh; Claire E Wakefield; Jordana K McLoone; Gail Garvey; Richard J Cohn Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Belle H de Rooij; Nicole P M Ezendam; Kim A H Nicolaije; M Caroline Vos; Johanna M A Pijnenborg; Dorry Boll; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: A Fuchsia Howard; Karen Goddard; Jason Tan de Bibiana; Sheila Pritchard; Robert Olson; Arminee Kazanjian Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-01-30 Impact factor: 4.442