PURPOSE: Group medical consultations (GMCs) provide individual medical visits conducted within a group of four to eight peer patients. This study evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of GMCs in the follow-up of breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 38 patients participated in a single GMC (intervention group), while the control group (n = 31) receivedindividual outpatient visits. Feasibility is measured in terms of acceptability, demand, practicability and costs, integration and implementation, and efficacy. Between-group differences on the efficacy outcomes distress (SCL-90) and empowerment (CEQ), 1 week and 3 months after the visit, were analyzed using ANCOVAs. RESULTS:GMCs scored high on most areas of feasibility. Patients in GMCs and individual visits were equally satisfied. Patients and professionals reported more discussed themes in GMCs, despite no between-group differences on information needs prior to the visit. Sixty-nine percent of GMC patients experienced peer support. Costs for GMCs were higher compared to individual visits. However, involving a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) instead of a medical specialist reduced costs to the level of individual CNS care. Efficacy outcomes (distress and empowerment) were equal in both groups. CONCLUSION:GMCs in this study were feasible. Further optimization of GMCs in future (cost-)effectiveness trials is possible by increasing the frequency of GMCs, stating criteria for the type of professionals, number of patients involved, and time limits. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: BCS may benefit from GMCs by receiving more information and additional peer support. GMCs cover all aspects of follow-up and may be a good alternative for individual follow-up.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Group medical consultations (GMCs) provide individual medical visits conducted within a group of four to eight peer patients. This study evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of GMCs in the follow-up of breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 38 patients participated in a single GMC (intervention group), while the control group (n = 31) received individual outpatient visits. Feasibility is measured in terms of acceptability, demand, practicability and costs, integration and implementation, and efficacy. Between-group differences on the efficacy outcomes distress (SCL-90) and empowerment (CEQ), 1 week and 3 months after the visit, were analyzed using ANCOVAs. RESULTS: GMCs scored high on most areas of feasibility. Patients in GMCs and individual visits were equally satisfied. Patients and professionals reported more discussed themes in GMCs, despite no between-group differences on information needs prior to the visit. Sixty-nine percent of GMC patients experienced peer support. Costs for GMCs were higher compared to individual visits. However, involving a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) instead of a medical specialist reduced costs to the level of individual CNS care. Efficacy outcomes (distress and empowerment) were equal in both groups. CONCLUSION: GMCs in this study were feasible. Further optimization of GMCs in future (cost-)effectiveness trials is possible by increasing the frequency of GMCs, stating criteria for the type of professionals, number of patients involved, and time limits. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: BCS may benefit from GMCs by receiving more information and additional peer support. GMCs cover all aspects of follow-up and may be a good alternative for individual follow-up.
Authors: Jennifer M Jones; Terry Cheng; Maureen Jackman; Tara Walton; Susan Haines; Gary Rodin; Pamela Catton Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: José A E Custers; Sanne W van den Berg; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Eveline M A Bleiker; Marieke F M Gielissen; Judith B Prins Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Mascha de Kok; Rachel W Scholte; Herman J Sixma; Trudy van der Weijden; Karin F Spijkers; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Jan-Anne Roukema; Fred W van der Ent; Antoine V R J Bell; Maarten F von Meyenfeldt Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-04-27 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Annemiek Visser; Judith B Prins; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Ariana Thompson-Lastad; Chloe E Atreya; Maria T Chao; Christine Pollak; Anand Dhruva; Trilce Santana; Donald I Abrams Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Karin van Rosmalen-Nooijens; Sylvie Lo Fo Wong; Judith Prins; Toine Lagro-Janssen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Beverley L Høeg; Pernille E Bidstrup; Randi V Karlsen; Anne Sofie Friberg; Vanna Albieri; Susanne O Dalton; Lena Saltbæk; Klaus Kaae Andersen; Trine Allerslev Horsboel; Christoffer Johansen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-11-21