PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of health professionals' recommendations for medical follow-up among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Mailed surveys and telephone interviews with CRC survivors in California. SAMPLE: 593 adults diagnosed with a primary CRC six to seven years before the time of the study. METHODS: Participants were identified through California Cancer Registry records and invited to take part in a survey delivered via mail or through telephone interview. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: The survey assessed cancer history, current preventive health practices, health status, demographics, and other cancer-related experiences. FINDINGS: More than 70% of CRC survivors received recommendations for routine checkups, surveillance colonoscopy, or other cancer screenings after completing CRC treatment, and 18%-22% received no such recommendations. Recommendations were sometimes given in writing. Receiving a recommendation for a specific type of follow-up was associated with greater adherence to corresponding guidelines for routine checkups, colonoscopy, mammography, and Papanicolaou testing. Receiving written (versus unwritten) recommendations led to greater adherence only for colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Most CRC survivors reported receiving recommendations for long-term medical follow-up and largely adhered to guidelines for follow-up. Receiving a health professional's recommendation for follow-up was consistently associated with patient adherence, and limited evidence showed that recommendations in written form led to greater adherence than unwritten recommendations. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Given the increasingly important role of the oncology nurse in survivorship care, nurses can be instrumental in ensuring appropriate surveillance and follow-up care among CRC survivors. Conveying recommendations in written form, as is done in survivorship care plans, may be particularly effective.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of health professionals' recommendations for medical follow-up among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Mailed surveys and telephone interviews with CRC survivors in California. SAMPLE: 593 adults diagnosed with a primary CRC six to seven years before the time of the study. METHODS:Participants were identified through California Cancer Registry records and invited to take part in a survey delivered via mail or through telephone interview. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: The survey assessed cancer history, current preventive health practices, health status, demographics, and other cancer-related experiences. FINDINGS: More than 70% of CRC survivors received recommendations for routine checkups, surveillance colonoscopy, or other cancer screenings after completing CRC treatment, and 18%-22% received no such recommendations. Recommendations were sometimes given in writing. Receiving a recommendation for a specific type of follow-up was associated with greater adherence to corresponding guidelines for routine checkups, colonoscopy, mammography, and Papanicolaou testing. Receiving written (versus unwritten) recommendations led to greater adherence only for colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Most CRC survivors reported receiving recommendations for long-term medical follow-up and largely adhered to guidelines for follow-up. Receiving a health professional's recommendation for follow-up was consistently associated with patient adherence, and limited evidence showed that recommendations in written form led to greater adherence than unwritten recommendations. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Given the increasingly important role of the oncology nurse in survivorship care, nurses can be instrumental in ensuring appropriate surveillance and follow-up care among CRC survivors. Conveying recommendations in written form, as is done in survivorship care plans, may be particularly effective.
Entities:
Keywords:
adherence; cancer surveillance; cancer survivorship; colorectal cancer; long-term care; public health
Authors: Melissa Y Carpentier; Sally W Vernon; L Kay Bartholomew; Caitlin C Murphy; Shirley M Bluethmann Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Stephen J Rulyak; Margaret T Mandelson; Teresa A Brentnall; Carolyn M Rutter; Edward H Wagner Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Dorothy Dulko; Claire M Pace; Kim L Dittus; Brian L Sprague; Lori A Pollack; Nikki A Hawkins; Berta M Geller Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Susan A Sabatino; Trevor D Thompson; Judith Lee Smith; Julia H Rowland; Laura P Forsythe; Loria Pollack; Nikki A Hawkins Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Ulrike Boehmer; Jennifer Potter; Melissa A Clark; Michael Winter; Flora Berklein; Rachel M Ceballos; Kevan Hartshorn; Al Ozonoff Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Robert B Hines; Md Jibanul Haque Jiban; Kanak Choudhury; Victoria Loerzel; Adrian V Specogna; Steven P Troy; Shunpu Zhang Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Frederic Ivan L Ting; Danielle Benedict L Sacdalan; Mayou Martin T Tampo; Rosielyn T Apellido; Hermogenes J Monroy; Marie Dione P Sacdalan; Dennis L Sacdalan Journal: JCO Glob Oncol Date: 2020-02