Literature DB >> 31111506

Identifying subgroups of well-being among patients with cancer: Differences in attitudes and preferences around surveillance after curative-intent surgery.

Elizabeth Palmer Kelly1, J Madison Hyer2, Amblessed E Onuma2, Anghela Z Paredes2, Diamantis I Tsilimigras2, Timothy M Pawlik2.   

Abstract

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.
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer; preferences; surgery; surveillance; well-being

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31111506      PMCID: PMC7263435          DOI: 10.1002/jso.25507

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0022-4790            Impact factor:   3.454


  21 in total

Review 1.  Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review.

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

2.  Bending the cost curve in cancer care.

Authors:  Thomas J Smith; Bruce E Hillner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Post-treatment surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer with surgically treated liver metastases.

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

4.  Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument.

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

5.  Association of shared decision-making on patient-reported health outcomes and healthcare utilization.

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

6.  Anxiety and cancer-related worry of cancer patients at routine follow-up visits.

Authors:  C Lampic; A Wennberg; J E Schill; O Brodin; B Glimelius; P O Sjödén
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.089

7.  Future of cancer incidence in the United States: burdens upon an aging, changing nation.

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

8.  Physicians' communication and perceptions of patients: is it how they look, how they talk, or is it just the doctor?

Authors:  Richard L Street; Howard Gordon; Paul Haidet
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2007-04-25       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Follow-up of colorectal cancer patients: quality of life and attitudes towards follow-up.

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

10.  Measuring financial toxicity as a clinically relevant patient-reported outcome: The validation of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST).

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.