Oliver Rick1, J Böckmann2, T Dauelsberg3, W Hoffmann4, W Kämpfer2, U Otto5, A Rogge6, D Zermann7. 1. Klinik Reinhardshöhe, Quellenstr. 8-12, 34537, Bad Wildungen, Deutschland. oliver.rick@klinik-reinhardshoehe.de. 2. Bundesverband Prostatakrebs Selbsthilfe e. V., Thomas-Mann-Str. 40, 53111, Bonn, Deutschland. 3. Winkelwaldklinik, Winkelwald 2‑4, 77787, Nordrach/Schwarzwald, Deutschland. 4. Klinik Park-Therme, Ernst-Eisenlohr-Straße 32, 79410, Badenweiler, Deutschland. 5. Urologisches Kompetenzzentrum für die Rehabilitation, Wiesenweg 6, 34537, Bad Wildungen, Deutschland. 6. Klinik Schloss Schönhagen, Schloßstraße 1, 24398, Schönhagen, Deutschland. 7. Vogtland-Klinik, Forststr. 3, 08645, Bad Elster, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Even though several specialist groups, including the German Pension Insurance (Deutsche Rentenversicherung) and health insurance funds, participate in the rehabilitation of patients with prostate carcinoma, there is no standardized rehabilitation program available for these patients. Consequently, there is no transparency regarding the services provided within the scope of rehabilitation for the referring physicians to uro-oncological rehabilitation, in particular, neither for physicians at urological acute-care clinics, nor for the patients concerned. Rehabilitation clinics are rather left to their own devices as to which services they provide in the treatment of the respective disease and in social situations, but also with regard to the consulting services offered. PROBLEM: Development of a standard for the rehabilitation of patients with prostate carcinoma, taking into account both specialist circles and self-help groups relevant to this matter. METHODS: Specialist groups, including self-help groups participating in the rehabilitation of patients with prostate cancer, have formed an expert group and developed the present standard. To this end, a thematic unsystematic literature review was carried out in advance to provide an evidence-based foundation. RESULTS: Views were given with regard to rehabilitation diagnostics, the therapy of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction, sport and physical exercise therapy, psycho-oncology, and social- and disease-related consulting. In this context, the focus was set on classification as well as on the consensus strength of the respective recommendations. CONCLUSION: All parties involved in the rehabilitation of prostate cancer patients, as well as the patients and the responsible cost bearers, can now use the standard as an orientation guide.
BACKGROUND: Even though several specialist groups, including the German Pension Insurance (Deutsche Rentenversicherung) and health insurance funds, participate in the rehabilitation of patients with prostate carcinoma, there is no standardized rehabilitation program available for these patients. Consequently, there is no transparency regarding the services provided within the scope of rehabilitation for the referring physicians to uro-oncological rehabilitation, in particular, neither for physicians at urological acute-care clinics, nor for the patients concerned. Rehabilitation clinics are rather left to their own devices as to which services they provide in the treatment of the respective disease and in social situations, but also with regard to the consulting services offered. PROBLEM: Development of a standard for the rehabilitation of patients with prostate carcinoma, taking into account both specialist circles and self-help groups relevant to this matter. METHODS: Specialist groups, including self-help groups participating in the rehabilitation of patients with prostate cancer, have formed an expert group and developed the present standard. To this end, a thematic unsystematic literature review was carried out in advance to provide an evidence-based foundation. RESULTS: Views were given with regard to rehabilitation diagnostics, the therapy of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction, sport and physical exercise therapy, psycho-oncology, and social- and disease-related consulting. In this context, the focus was set on classification as well as on the consensus strength of the respective recommendations. CONCLUSION: All parties involved in the rehabilitation of prostate cancerpatients, as well as the patients and the responsible cost bearers, can now use the standard as an orientation guide.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer survivorship; Oncology; Prostate cancer; Rehabilitation; Standard therapy
Authors: W Vahlensieck; M Gäck; J Gleissner; W Hoffmann; S Liedke; U Otto; D Sauerwein; E Schindler; H Schultheis; F Sommer; R Templin; M Zellner Journal: Urologe A Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: F Montorsi; G Guazzoni; L F Strambi; L F Da Pozzo; L Nava; L Barbieri; P Rigatti; G Pizzini; A Miani Journal: J Urol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Tom F Lue; François Giuliano; Francesco Montorsi; Raymond C Rosen; Karl-Erik Andersson; Stanley Althof; George Christ; Dimitrios Hatzichristou; Mark Hirsch; Yasasuke Kimoto; Ronald Lewis; Kevin McKenna; Chris MacMahon; Alvaro Morales; John Mulcahy; Harin Padma-Nathan; John Pryor; Inigo Saenz de Tejada; Ridwan Shabsigh; Gorm Wagner Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 3.802