BACKGROUND: Patient perceptions and preferences related to postoperative surveillance are not yet well defined. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of the surveillance practice preferences and attitudes was undertaken based on subgroups derived from clustering participants for measures of well-being, including financial toxicity, emotional, family/social, and functional well-being. RESULTS: Among 212 participants, the average age was 58.1 years and most patients were female (57.1%) and white (90.2%). Common malignancies included melanoma/sarcoma (26.4%), thyroid (25.5%), breast (18.9%), gastrointestinal (18.4%), and lung (7.5%) cancer. Respondents within the highest well-being subgroup rated their perception of communication as being the highest more consistently compared with the other well-being subgroups (P = .005). Participants with the highest level of well-being felt more reassured by follow-up appointments (Subgroup 1, Med = 4.00, interquartile range (IQR) = 0.25 vs subgroup 4, Med = 3.75, IQR = 0.73, P = .023). In contrast, patients with the lowest sense of well-being had the highest level of nervousness related to surveillance (subgroup 1, Med = 1.60, IQR = 1.00 vs subgroup 4, Med = 2.20, IQR = 1.15, P < .001). There were no differences in surveillance frequency preferences among different well-being subgroups. CONCLUSION: Attitudes towards postoperative surveillance varied with regard to perception of provider communication, nervous anticipation, and assuredness depending on overall patient well-being. Providers should attempt to assess patient well-being as part of a tailored approach to postcancer surgery surveillance.
BACKGROUND:Patient perceptions and preferences related to postoperative surveillance are not yet well defined. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of the surveillance practice preferences and attitudes was undertaken based on subgroups derived from clustering participants for measures of well-being, including financial toxicity, emotional, family/social, and functional well-being. RESULTS: Among 212 participants, the average age was 58.1 years and most patients were female (57.1%) and white (90.2%). Common malignancies included melanoma/sarcoma (26.4%), thyroid (25.5%), breast (18.9%), gastrointestinal (18.4%), and lung (7.5%) cancer. Respondents within the highest well-being subgroup rated their perception of communication as being the highest more consistently compared with the other well-being subgroups (P = .005). Participants with the highest level of well-being felt more reassured by follow-up appointments (Subgroup 1, Med = 4.00, interquartile range (IQR) = 0.25 vs subgroup 4, Med = 3.75, IQR = 0.73, P = .023). In contrast, patients with the lowest sense of well-being had the highest level of nervousness related to surveillance (subgroup 1, Med = 1.60, IQR = 1.00 vs subgroup 4, Med = 2.20, IQR = 1.15, P < .001). There were no differences in surveillance frequency preferences among different well-being subgroups. CONCLUSION: Attitudes towards postoperative surveillance varied with regard to perception of provider communication, nervous anticipation, and assuredness depending on overall patient well-being. Providers should attempt to assess patient well-being as part of a tailored approach to postcancer surgery surveillance.
Authors: Ruth A Lewis; Richard D Neal; Nefyn H Williams; Barbara France; Maggie Hendry; Daphne Russell; Dyfrig A Hughes; Ian Russell; Nicholas S A Stuart; David Weller; Clare Wilkinson Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Omar Hyder; Rebecca M Dodson; Skye C Mayo; Eric B Schneider; Matthew J Weiss; Joseph M Herman; Christopher L Wolfgang; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Surgery Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: M J Brady; D F Cella; F Mo; A E Bonomi; D S Tulsky; S R Lloyd; S Deasy; M Cobleigh; G Shiomoto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tasha M Hughes; Katiuscha Merath; Qinyu Chen; Steven Sun; Elizabeth Palmer; Jay J Idrees; Victor Okunrintemi; Malcolm Squires; Eliza W Beal; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Grace L Smith; Arti Hurria; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-04-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A M Stiggelbout; J C de Haes; R Vree; C J van de Velde; C M Bruijninckx; K van Groningen; J Kievit Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1997 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jonas A de Souza; Bonnie J Yap; Kristen Wroblewski; Victoria Blinder; Fabiana S Araújo; Fay J Hlubocky; Lauren H Nicholas; Jeremy M O'Connor; Bruce Brockstein; Mark J Ratain; Christopher K Daugherty; David Cella Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 6.860