Dataset Information

Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: evaluation of a supported self-management and remote surveillance programme.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Alternative models of cancer follow-up care are needed to ameliorate pressure on services and better meet survivors' long-term needs. This paper reports an evaluation of a service improvement initiative for the follow-up care of prostate cancer patients based on remote monitoring and supported self-management. METHODS:This multi-centred, historically controlled study compared patient reported outcomes of men experiencing the new Programme with men experiencing a traditional clinic appointment model of follow-up care, who were recruited in the period immediately prior to the introduction of the Programme. Data were collected by self-completed questionnaires, with follow up measurement at four and eight months post-baseline. The primary outcome was men's unmet survivorship needs, measured by the Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs Survey. Secondary outcomes included cancer specific quality of life, psychological wellbeing and satisfaction with care. The analysis was intention to treat. Regression analyses were conducted for outcomes at each time point separately, controlling for pre-defined clinical and demographic variables. All outcome analyses are presented in the paper. Costs were compared between the two groups. RESULTS:Six hundred and twenty-seven men (61%) were consented to take part in the study (293 in the Programme and 334 in the comparator group.) Regarding the primary measure of unmet survivorship needs, 25 of 26 comparisons favoured the Programme, of which 4 were statistically significant. For the secondary measures of activation for self-management, quality of life, psychological well-being and lifestyle, 20 of 32 comparisons favoured the Programme and 3 were statistically significant. There were 22 items on the satisfaction with care questionnaire and 13 were statistically significant. Per participant costs (British pounds, 2015) in the 8?month follow up period were slightly lower in the programme than in the comparator group (£289 versus £327). The Programme was acceptable to patients. CONCLUSION:The Programme is shown to be broadly comparable to traditional follow-up care in all respects, adding to evidence of the viability of such models.

SUBMITTER: Frankland J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6480799 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: evaluation of a supported self-management and remote surveillance programme.

Frankland Jane J Brodie Hazel H Cooke Deborah D Foster Claire C Foster Rebecca R Gage Heather H Jordan Jake J Mesa-Eguiagaray Ines I Pickering Ruth R Richardson Alison A

BMC cancer 20190423 1

<h4>Background</h4>Alternative models of cancer follow-up care are needed to ameliorate pressure on services and better meet survivors' long-term needs. This paper reports an evaluation of a service improvement initiative for the follow-up care of prostate cancer patients based on remote monitoring and supported self-management.<h4>Methods</h4>This multi-centred, historically controlled study compared patient reported outcomes of men experiencing the new Programme with men experiencing a traditi ...[more]

PMID: 31014282

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn Sweden, core treatment for osteoarthritis is offered through a Supported Osteoarthritis Self-Management Programme (SOASP), combining education and exercise to provide patients with coping strategies in self-managing the disease. The aim was to study enablement and empowerment among patients with osteoarthritis in the hip and/or knee participating in a SOASP. An additional aim was to study the relation between the Swedish version of the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) and the Swedish Rheumatic Disease Empowerment Scale (SWE-RES-23).MethodsPatients with osteoarthritis participating in a SOASP in primary health care were recruited consecutively from 2016 to 2018. The PEI (score range 0-12) was used to measure enablement and the SWE-RES-23 (score range 1-5) to measure empowerment. The instruments were answered before (SWE-RES-23) and after the SOASP (PEI, SWE-RES-23). A patient partner was incorporated in the study. Descriptive statistics, the Wilcoxon's signed rank test, effect size (r), and the Spearman's rho (rs) were used in the analysis.ResultsIn total, 143 patients were included in the study, 111 (78%) were women (mean age 66, SD 9.3 years). At baseline the reported median value for the SWE-RES-23 (n = 142) was 3.6 (IQR 3.3-4.0). After the educational part of the SOASP, the reported median value was 6 (IQR 3-6.5) for the PEI (n = 109) and 3.8 (IQR 3.6-4.1) for the SWE-RES-23 (n = 108). At three months follow-up (n = 116), the reported median value was 6 (IQR 4-7) for the PEI and 3.9 (IQR 3.6-4.2) for the SWE-RES-23. The SWE-RES-23 score increased between baseline and three months (p ≤ 0.000). The analysis showed a positive correlation between PEI and SWE-RES-23 after the educational part of the SOASP (rs = 0.493, p < 0.00, n = 108) and at follow-up at three months (rs = 0.507, p < 0.00, n = 116).ConclusionsPatients reported moderate to high enablement and empowerment and an increase in empowerment after participating in a SOASP, which might indicate that the SOASP is useful to enable and empower patients at least in the short term. Since our results showed that the PEI and the SWE-RES-23 are only partly related both instruments can be of use in evaluating interventions such as the SOASP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02974036 . First registration 28/11/2016, retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundActive surveillance (AS) is the preferred option for initial management for low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Although many AS protocols exist, there is little evidence to support one over another.ObjectiveTo assess whether there is difference in overall (OS), prostate cancer-specific (CSS), metastasis-free (MFS), or treatment-free (TFS) survival between a strict (Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance [PRIAS]) and a loose (European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC]) AS protocol.Design setting and participantsThis study included two cohorts of men (n = 518) with low-risk, localized, Gleason score ≤7 PC. The ERSPC cohort included 241 men followed for 9.5 yr (median) with a non-protocol-based follow-up. The PRIAS cohort included 277 men followed for 5 yr (median) with a strict protocol.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisOS, CSS, MFS, and TFS were compared by the Kaplan-Meier method, competing risk analysis, and Cox proportional hazard regression.Results and limitationsAs expected, due to the difference in median follow-up time between the cohorts, a difference in the absolute number of events was seen. However, no difference in any of the survival outcomes was evident in the Kaplan-Meier or competing risks analysis. Furthermore, in Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, cohort (ERSPC vs PRIAS) was not associated with any of the outcomes. Results are limited by the retrospective study design, limited statistical power, and inability to match the cohorts for predictive factors.ConclusionsThere was no difference in survival outcomes between a non-protocol-based follow-up and a protocol-based contemporary AS follow-up of patients with low-risk PC. However, a longer follow-up is needed.Patient summaryWe compared survival outcomes of two cohorts of patients with low-risk prostate cancer: a strict and a loose follow-up protocol. We found no differences in survival measures between the cohorts.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with type 1 diabetes who attend structured education training in self-management using flexible intensive therapy achieve improved blood glucose control and experience fewer episodes of severe hypoglycaemia. However, many struggle to sustain these improvements over time. To inform the design of more effective follow-up support we undertook a review of qualitative studies which have identified factors that influence and inform participants' self-management behaviours after attending structured education and their need for support to sustain improvements in glycaemic control.MethodsWe undertook a meta-ethnography of relevant qualitative studies, identified using systematic search methods. Studies were included which focused on participants' experiences of self-managing type 1 diabetes after attending structured education which incorporated training in flexible intensive insulin therapy. A line of argument approach was used to synthesise the findings.ResultsThe search identified 18 papers from six studies. The studies included were judged to be of high methodological quality. The line of argument synthesis developed the Follow-Up Support for Effective type 1 Diabetes self-management (FUSED) model. This model outlines the challenges participants encounter in maintaining diabetes self-management practices after attending structured education, and describes how participants try to address these barriers by adapting, simplifying or personalising the self-management approaches they have learned. To help participants maintain the skills taught during courses, the FUSED model presents ten recommendations abstracted from the included papers to provide a logic model for a programme of individualised and responsive follow-up support.ConclusionsThis meta-ethnography highlights how providing skills training using structured education to people with type 1 diabetes does not necessarily result in participants adopting and sustaining recommended changes in behaviour. To help people sustain diabetes self-management skills after attending structured education, it is recommended that support be provided over the longer-term by appropriately trained healthcare professionals which is responsive to individuals' needs. Although developed to inform support for people with type 1 diabetes, the FUSED model provides a framework that could also be applied to support individuals with other long term conditions which require complex self-management skills to be learned and sustained over time.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration: CRD42017067961 .

Dataset Information

Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: evaluation of a supported self-management and remote surveillance programme.

Publications

Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: evaluation of a supported self-management and remote surveillance programme.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets