Dataset Information

Describing perspectives of health care professionals on active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Over the last decade, active surveillance has proven to be a safe approach for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Although active surveillance presents several advantages for both patients and the health care system, all eligible patients do not adopt this approach. Our goal was to evaluate the factors that influence physicians to recommend active surveillance and the barriers that impact adherence to this approach.

Methods

Focus groups (n?=?5) were held with physicians who provided care for men with low-risk prostate cancer and had engaged in conversations with men and their families about active surveillance. The experience of health care professionals (HCPs) was captured to understand their decisions in proposing active surveillance and to reveal the barriers and facilitators that affect the adherence to this approach. A content analysis was performed on the verbatim transcripts from the sessions.

Results

Although physicians agreed that active surveillance is a suitable approach for low-risk prostate cancer patients, they were concerned about the rapidly evolving and non-standardized guidelines for patient follow-up. They pointed out the need for additional tools to appropriately identify proper patients for whom active surveillance is the best option. Urologists and radiation-oncologists were keen to collaborate with each other, but the role of general practitioner remained controversial once patients were referred to a specialist.

Conclusions

Integration of more reliable tools and/or markers in addition to more specific guidelines for patient follow-up would increase the confidence of both patients and physicians in the choice of active surveillance.

SUBMITTER: Pang K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5994022 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Describing perspectives of health care professionals on active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer.

Pang Kittie K Fitch Margaret M Ouellet Veronique V Chevalier Simone S Drachenberg Darrel E DE Finelli Antonio A Lattouf Jean-Baptiste JB So Alan A Sutcliffe Simon S Tanguay Simon S Saad Fred F Mes-Masson Anne-Marie AM

BMC health services research 20180608 1

<h4>Background</h4>Over the last decade, active surveillance has proven to be a safe approach for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Although active surveillance presents several advantages for both patients and the health care system, all eligible patients do not adopt this approach. Our goal was to evaluate the factors that influence physicians to recommend active surveillance and the barriers that impact adherence to this approach.<h4>Methods</h4>Focus groups (n = 5) were held with physi ...[more]

PMID: 29884180

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe conducted a study to understand primary care physician (PCP) and urologist perspectives on determinants of active surveillance care delivery for men with low-risk prostate cancer.MethodsWe conducted in-depth, semistructured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 19 PCPs and 15 urologists between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the behavioral theory-informed Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers to and facilitators of active surveillance care delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into framework domains and constructs by 3 independent coders. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group.ResultsOur study included 19 PCPs (9 female; 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers) and 15 urologists (3 female; 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers). The most commonly reported Theoretical Domains Framework domains affecting active surveillance care were (1) knowledge and (2) environmental context and resources. Although urologists were knowledgeable about active surveillance, PCPs mentioned limitations in their understanding of active surveillance (eg, what follow-up entails). Both groups noted the importance of an informed patient, especially how a patient's understanding of active surveillance facilitates their receipt of recommended follow-up. Physicians viewed patient loss to follow-up as a barrier, but identified a favorable organizational culture/climate (eg, good communication between physicians) as a facilitator.ConclusionsWith patients increasingly involving their PCPs in their cancer care, our study presents factors both PCPs and urologists perceive (or identify) as affecting optimal active surveillance care delivery. We provide insights that can help inform multilevel supportive interventions for patients, physicians, and organizations to ensure the success of active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer.

Project description:Many men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer can postpone definitive treatment without raising their risk of metastasis or death from disease. Active surveillance (AS) is a method of monitoring select men, with the option of switching to active treatment upon signs of progression, thereby avoiding the well-known side-effects of surgery and radiotherapy. This review analyzes the data from long-running AS cohorts to determine the safety and efficacy of AS. We conducted a narrative review of recently published data, including 14 articles from 13 AS cohorts. The cohorts used varying inclusion criteria, with reported differences in clinical T stage and Gleason Score (Grade Group), among other features. Some studies (n=5) limited their cohorts to low-risk patients, while others (n=8) also included intermediate-risk patients. The heterogeneity of the cohorts produced mixed results, with the risk of prostate cancer metastasis ranging from 0.1-1.0% at 10 years and the risk of prostate cancer mortality ranging from 0-1.9% at 10 years. However, the majority of studies reported risks of less than 0.5% at 10 years for both metastasis and death. For most cohorts, half of men remained untreated for 5-10 years, with estimates ranging from 37% receiving active treatment in the Toronto cohort to 73% in the Prostate Cancer Research International AS (PRIAS) study. Current data do not support the use of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to avoid scheduled biopsy. Taken together, the data collected from these AS cohorts suggests that AS is a safe approach for men with low-grade prostate cancer and some men with intermediate risk disease. AS should be more broadly implemented for eligible patients to avoid the decreases in quality of life from undergoing active treatment. Studies expanding the inclusion criteria and further defining a subset of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer who might safely benefit from AS are needed to assess the long-term outcomes of using AS in intermediate-risk groups.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with prediabetes are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes and its complications, such as cardiovascular diseases and premature mortality. Primary prevention and health maintenance are therefore imperative. Evidence has shown that prediabetes can be prevented or delayed with behavioural change, mainly in eating habits and physical activity. Interventions that use a person-centered approach can lead to improvements in self-management, quality of life, and health outcomes. Nevertheless, there is a need for further research that engages healthcare professionals and people with prediabetes in constructing and implementing preventive programs. The purpose of this study is to explore and describe how healthcare professionals perceive prediabetes, the current challenges in its detection and treatment, and what is needed to improve quality of care.MethodsThis qualitative study was conducted in Region Stockholm. A total of 26 primary health care professionals participated in individual interviews: 15 diabetes nurses and/or district nurses, five general practitioners, five dietitians, and one physiotherapist. Interview transcripts were analyzed with qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe analysis revealed two main themes that emphasize the need to make prediabetes more visible in primary health care. Despite the healthcare professionals' engagement and their motivation to improve prediabetes care, ad hoc practices and the absence of clear screening guidelines and referral pathways made it harder to focus on primary prevention. Supporting professionals in implementing structured care for people with prediabetes might encourage more efficient interprofessional collaboration and contribute to better strategies for promoting behavioural change.ConclusionsEstablishing prediabetes care guidelines, supporting health care professionals´ knowledge and skills in prediabetes care, and implementing interprofessional referral pathways are some steps to enhance prediabetes detection and care precedence in primary health care. These steps could lead to more preventive care and ensure patient safety and health care equity.

Project description:BackgroundThe routine clinical use of serum prostatic specific antigen (PSA) testing has allowed earlier detection of low-grade prostate cancer (PCa) with more favourable characteristics, leading to increased acceptance of management by active surveillance (AS). AS aims to avoid over treatment in men with low and intermediate-risk PCa and multiple governing bodies have described several AS protocols. This study provides a descriptive profile of the Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) AS cohort as a platform for future research in AS pathways in PCa.MethodsDemographic and baseline characteristics were retrospectively collected in a database for patients at the GSTT AS clinic with prospective collection of follow-up data from 2012. Seven hundred eighty-eight men being monitored at GSTT with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk PCa, at least 1 follow-up appointment and diagnostic characteristics consistent with AS criteria were included in the profile. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable Cox proportion hazards regression models were used to characterize the cohort.DiscussionA relatively large proportion of the cohort includes men of African/Afro-Caribbean descent (22%). More frequent use of magnetic resonance imaging and trans-perineal biopsies at diagnosis was observed among patients diagnosed after 2012. Those who underwent trans-rectal ultrasound diagnostic biopsy received their first surveillance biopsy 20 months earlier than those who underwent trans-perineal diagnostic biopsy. At 3 years, 76.1% men remained treatment free. Predictors of treatment progression included Gleason score 3 + 4 (Hazard ratio (HR): 2.41, 95% Confidence interval (CI): 1.79-3.26) and more than 2 positive cores taken at biopsy (HR: 2.65, CI: 1.94-3.62). A decreased risk of progressing to treatment was seen among men diagnosed after 2012 (HR: 0.72, CI: 0.53-0.98).ConclusionAn organised biopsy surveillance approach, via two different AS pathways according to the patient's diagnostic method, can be seen within the GSTT cohort. Risk of patients progressing to treatment has decreased in the period since 2012 compared with the prior period with more than half of the cohort remaining treatment free at 5 years, highlighting that the fundamental aims of AS at GSTT are being met. Thus, this cohort is a good resource to investigate the AS treatment pathway.

Dataset Information

Describing perspectives of health care professionals on active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Describing perspectives of health care professionals on active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets