| Literature DB >> 25236685 |
Louise Moody1, Andrew Turner, Jane Osmond, Louise Hooker, Joanna Kosmala-Anderson, Lynn Batehup.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As the population of young cancer survivors increases, there is a need to develop alternative ways of providing post-treatment support. Online systems potentially offer self-management and e-learning support following cancer treatment. This research aims to explore the self-management support needs of teenage and young adult cancer survivors and consider whether those needs can be met through a web-based self-management resource.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25236685 PMCID: PMC4441741 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-014-0400-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer Surviv ISSN: 1932-2259 Impact factor: 4.442
Potential features of a self-management system
| • Self-management information (e.g. written materials, webinars, video podcasts) |
| • Informational resources /documents (e.g. long-term effects of treatment, what do my test results mean?) |
| • Case studies |
| • News section |
| • Ask a doctor/nurse (e.g. secure messaging to clinicians/live Q&A/Twitter chat hour/web chat live to doctors) |
| • Individual care pathways |
| • Making and cancelling appointments online |
| • Appointment reminders (e.g. text messaging/SMS or web-based) |
| • Looking up results |
| • Patient to patient communication (e.g. messaging between patients or parents, discussion forum) |
| • Parent information and access |
| • IT help link |
Fig. 1Potential online self-management model
Potential features of an online self-management system and desirability to stakeholders
| Self-management system features | Survivors survey (% that would use) | Survivor interview and FG findings | Parent interview findings | Health care professional interview findings | IT experts interview findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personal development | |||||
| Education/development | 46 % | Recognised the need for support in a variety of areas; they would use an online system comprising of different features | Saw the benefit of online self-management and also wanted guidance on how to support their child | Considered useful to have a system at the end of treatment to provide support, and enhance self-esteem and confidence to self-manage | Straightforward to deliver through a range of delivery mechanisms Video podcasts are memory intensive |
| Case studies | 52 % | ||||
| Webinars/podcasts | 19 % | ||||
| Individual support | |||||
| Ask a doctor or nurse (private) | 57 % | Considered a convenient way to access information and support without going to the hospital | Supported being able to ask questions of the clinical team online | Support is already provided by text message. Concerns about implementation and the ability to respond rapidly enough to survivor concerns | Technically possible by email through the Trust. Public discussion could provide governance issues |
| Live Q&A (public, e.g. Twitter) | 62 % | ||||
| Clinical management | |||||
| Making appointments | 76 % | Seen positively as a way to manage appointments and check appointment times | Regarded automated text message reminders about hospital appointments as useful | Seen as a good idea. Survivors can be reluctant to ring up and make appointments This would reduce the number of checks made about appointment times | Technically feasible, requires interfacing with other patient systems |
| Cancelling appointments | 67 % | Straightforward to cancel, more complex to re-book | |||
| Appointment reminders by text | 76 % | Appointment reminders about the time and location of appointment are straightforward | |||
| Looking up results | 57 % | Generally not in favour as results need to be explained, not just provided | Only one parent was in favour of their child being able to access test results online | Not in favour. The need for clinical interpretation and emotional support was emphasised | Technically feasible. A clinician would need to review the results and then place in a secure area for access by the patient |
| Social support | |||||
| Patient–patient communication | 52 % | Mixed views, reflecting personal perspectives on online communication and social networking | Generally supportive of social networking functions enabling their child to interact with other survivors | Peer to peer support is considered important | Governance issues around confidentiality, access, control and moderation of posts. Best hosted outside of the NHS |
Perceived benefits and risks of online self-management support
| Perceived benefits | Perceived risks and challenges |
|---|---|
| Impact on the survivor | |
| • Enables networking and peer interaction amongst survivors | • Loss of contact with vulnerable people who will not ask for help and use the system |
| • Helps survivors feel like they are no longer a patient | • Poor clinic attendance and weaker survivor follow-up |
| • Provides access to resources 24 h a day | • Limited accessibility for young people with learning difficulties, brain tumours, memory problems, ADHD or who are vulnerable |
| • Reduced time before follow-up of individual issues | • Limited accessibility for young people without a smart phone or access to a PC |
| • Reduced re-admittance after discharge as problems tackled early, or without the need for admittance | • Online safety and confidentiality risks for survivors |
| • Poor resourcing leads to lack of support and damages relationships with survivors | |
| Logistics and delivery of care | |
| • One central, controlled and reliable resource | • Engaging and retaining young people |
| • Reduced waiting times as survivors visit the hospital less frequently | • Heavy clinical input required for developing and tailoring the content |
| • Faster access to support leading to early avoidance of problems | • The time required to moderate forums |
| • Improved geographical reach to dispersed groups that may not attend face to face events | • The complexity of providing |
| • The potential of the model to be transferred/used for other age groups and clinical areas, e.g. congenital heart defects, allergies, etc. | • A resource for small patient numbers at different parts of the treatment pathway |
| Financial and resourcing | |
| • Less resource hungry than face to face contact | • The financial outlay required for set-up |
| • Lower ongoing costs than face to face contact Providing hospitals with a means to innovate and increase technological usage | • Having to close down the system due to resource issues |