Showing papers by "Clare Wilkinson published in 2009"

Nurse-led vs. conventional physician-led follow-up for patients with cancer: systematic review

Abstract: Aim. This paper is a report of a systematic review of the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of nurse-led follow-up for patients with cancer. Background. As cancer survivorship increases, conventional follow-up puts a major burden on outpatient services. Nurse-led follow-up is a promising alternative. Data sources. Searches were conducted covering a period from inception to February 2007 of 19 electronic databases, seven online trial registries, five conference proceedings reference lists of previous reviews and included studies. Review methods. Standard systematic review methodology was used. Comparative studies and economic evaluations of nurse-led vs. physician-led follow-up were eligible. Studies comparing different types of nurse-led follow-up were excluded. Any cancer was considered; any outcome measure included. Results. Four randomised controlled trials were identified, two including cost analyses. There were no statistically significant differences in survival, recurrence or psychological morbidity. One study showed better HRQL measures for nurse-led follow-up, but one showed no difference, two showed a statistically significant difference for patient satisfaction, but two did not. Patients with lung cancer were more satisfied with nurse-led telephone follow-up and more were able to die at home. Patients with breast cancer thought patient-initiated follow-up convenient, but found conventional follow-up more reassuring. One study showed the cost of nurse-led follow-up to be less than that of physician-led follow-up, but no statistical comparison was made. Conclusion. Patients appeared satisfied with nurse-led follow-up. Patient-initiated or telephone follow-up could be practical alternatives to conventional care. However, well-conducted research is needed before equivalence to physician-led follow-up can be assured in terms of survival, recurrence, patient well-being and cost-effectiveness.

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

Abstract: Background Cancer follow-up has traditionally been undertaken in secondary care, but there are increasing calls to deliver it in primary care. Aim To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary care follow-up of cancer patients, determine the effectiveness of the integration of primary care in routine hospital follow-up, and evaluate the impact of patient-initiated follow-up on primary care. Design of study Systematic review. Setting Primary and secondary care settings. Method A search was carried out of 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of included studies. The review included comparative studies or economic evaluations of primary versus secondary care follow-up, hospital follow-up with formal primary care involvement versus conventional hospital follow-up, and hospital follow-up versus patient-initiated or minimal follow-up if the study reported the impact on primary care. Results There was no statistically significant difference for patient wellbeing, recurrence rate, survival, recurrence-related serious clinical events, diagnostic delay, or patient satisfaction. GP-led breast cancer follow-up was cheaper than hospital follow-up. Intensified primary health care resulted in increased home-care nurse contact, and improved discharge summary led to increased GP contact. Evaluation of patient-initiated or minimal follow-up found no statistically significant impact on the number of GP consultations or cancer-related referrals. Conclusion Weak evidence suggests that breast cancer follow-up in primary care is effective. Interventions improving communication between primary and secondary care could lead to greater GP involvement. Discontinuation of formal follow-up may not increase GP workload. However, the quality of the data in general was poor, and no firm conclusions can be reached.

Patients' and healthcare professionals' views of cancer follow-up: systematic review

Abstract: Background Cancer follow-up places a significant burden on hospital outpatient clinics. There are increasing calls to develop alternative models of provision. Aim To undertake a systematic review of qualitative studies examining patients' and healthcare professionals' views about cancer follow-up. Design of study Systematic review. Setting Primary and secondary care. Method Comprehensive literature searches included: 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of included studies. Eligible studies included qualitative studies examining patients' and healthcare professionals' views of cancer follow-up. Studies of patients with any type of cancer, considered free of active disease, or no longer receiving active treatment were included. Findings were synthesised using thematic analysis. Results Nineteen studies were included; seven were linked to randomised controlled trials. Eight studies examined the views of healthcare professionals (four of which included GPs) and 16 examined the views of patients. Twelve descriptive themes were identified, from which 12 perceived implications for practice were derived. Most themes related to conventional follow-up in secondary care. Some views concerning other models of care were based on participants' ideas, rather than experiences. Conclusion Patients' main concern is recurrent disease, and they find regular follow-up, expertise of specialists, and quick access to tests reassuring. Information regarding the effectiveness of follow-up is not given to patients who also have unmet information needs, which would help them to cope and be more involved. Continuity of care, unhurried consultations, and psychosocial support are important, but sometimes lacking in secondary care. GPs are thought to be unwilling and to have insufficient time and expertise to conduct follow-up.

Follow-up care for men with prostate cancer and the role of primary care: a systematic review of international guidelines

Abstract: The optimal role for primary care in providing follow-up for men with prostate cancer is uncertain. A systematic review of international guidelines was undertaken to help identify key elements of existing models of follow-up care to establish a theoretical basis for evaluating future complex interventions. Many guidelines provide insufficient information to judge the reliability of the recommendations. Although the PSA test remains the cornerstone of follow-up, the diversity of recommendations on the provision of follow-up care reflects the current lack of research evidence on which to base firm conclusions. The review highlights the importance of transparent guideline development procedures and the need for robust primary research to inform future evidence-based models of follow-up care for men with prostate cancer.

Factors associated with intrusive cancer-related worries in women undergoing cancer genetic risk assessment.

Abstract: One hundred and twenty-eight women undergoing assessment for genetic risk of breast/ovarian cancer completed questionnaires at entry into the assessment process and following risk provision. The key variable of interest was the level of intrusive worries at each time, and factors associated with the level of intrusive worries following risk provision. Based on the CARA model (Renner, Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30:384-396, 2004), it was expected that an unexpected risk assessment (whether good or bad) would result in high levels of intrusive thoughts. Other potential moderators of worry included neuroticism, level of threat experienced (low control, high perceived risk), the use of differing coping efforts, and the available social support. Of note was that while levels of intrusive thoughts fell in all risk groups following risk provision, unexpectedly only women found to be at population risk reported an increase of active attempts to distract from intrusive worries at this time. The CARA model was not supported. However, intrusion scores were independently associated with higher levels of neuroticism, a lack of confidant support, and a confrontive coping response. Active avoidance scores were uniquely associated with being assigned as population risk, neuroticism, lack of confidant and affective support, and the use of avoidant coping. Together, these variables accounted for 33% of the variance in intrusion scores and 31% of the variance in avoidance scores. The implications of these findings is discussed.

Patient preferences and National Health Service costs: a cost-consequences analysis of cancer genetic services.

Abstract: The study has three aims; firstly to establish if, having been informed of their risk status and that gene testing is inappropriate for them, low and moderate risk patients have misunderstood or failed to grasp this and want a test that is inappropriate for them. Secondly, to elicit patients’ willingness to pay for cancer genetic services. Thirdly, to ascertain the aspects of cancer genetics services that are important to high risk patients and present service configurations prioritised in terms of preferences accompanied by their costs (cost-consequences analysis). Patient preferences were gathered from 120 patients returning a self-administered discrete choice questionnaire issued post genetic risk assessment. Patients at low and moderate risk of developing breast cancer desired inappropriate testing. Patients at high, moderate and low risk of developing genetic cancer were willing to pay up to £3,000 for genetic serviced, which exceeds the current estimated cost of providing testing and counselling. Counselling by a genetics associate accompanied by favourable levels of other attributes provided high utility and substantial cost savings.

Activity Increase Despite Arthritis (AÏDA): design of a Phase II randomised controlled trial evaluating an active management booklet for hip and knee osteoarthritis [ISRCTN24554946]

Abstract: Hip and knee osteoarthritis is a common cause of pain and disability, which can be improved by exercise interventions. However, regular exercise is uncommon in this group because the low physical activity level in the general population is probably reduced even further by pain related fear of movement. The best method of encouraging increased activity in this patient group is not known. A booklet has been developed for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. It focuses on changing disadvantageous beliefs and encouraging increased physical activity. This paper describes the design of a Phase II randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the effectiveness of this new booklet for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis in influencing illness and treatment beliefs, and to assess the feasibility of conducting a larger definitive RCT in terms of health status and exercise behaviour. A computerised search of four general medical practice patients' record databases will identify patients older than 50 years of age who have consulted with hip or knee pain in the previous twelve months. A random sample of 120 will be invited to participate in the RCT comparing the new booklet with a control booklet, and we expect 100 to return final questionnaires. This trial will assess the feasibility of recruitment and randomisation, the suitability of the control intervention and outcome measurement tools, and will provide an estimate of effect size. Outcomes will include beliefs about hip and knee pain, beliefs about exercise, fear avoidance, level of physical activity, health status and health service costs. They will be measured at baseline, one month and three months. We discuss the merits of testing effectiveness in a phase II trial, in terms of intermediate outcome measures, whilst testing the processes for a larger definitive trial. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of testing the psychometric properties of the primary outcome measures concurrently with the trial. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24554946