Search

Introduction and aims Evidence for the management of patients after treatment is limited and particularly so for patients with advanced cancer. There is little empirical evidence to establish best practice in the after care of lung cancer patients. The aim of this study was to develop an understanding of patients' and carers' views of their aftercare and to integrate these into a new intervention. Methods A qualitative approach was taken using the principles of grounded theory. 35 interviews were conducted with patients and carers, participants had a range of histological diagnoses and stage of cancer and all treatment options were included in the sampling strategy. Results The period after treatment was highlighted as a difficult time for participants with anxiety and uncertainty after the ‘treadmill’ of treatment. Follow-up appointments provided significant reassurance about the patients' condition, which participants felt was best assessed by x-ray. Despite often poor prognosis the focus was to ‘get back to normal’ and live life to the full. Participants highlighted a lack of appropriate information after treatment, specific information about long term effects of treatment, symptoms and disease progression/recurrence. Transitions between teams were important concerns which led to worries about rapid access back to treatment/specialists. Conclusion Patient and carer preferences should be incorporated into the development of interventions; they have revealed important issues that impact on the day-to-day lives of people living with lung cancer, specifically, targeted information focusing on aftercare issues, care planning and identification of key contacts to manage care and transitions.

Background: Having appropriate information is important for parents of children with asthma, but evidence about the information parents would find most useful is lacking. Identifying the topics that are a priority for parents would help in tailoring asthma education. Methods: A survey was undertaken of parents of children with established asthma attending an outpatient clinic at a district general hospital in the Northwest of England. Data were collected using a structured asthma specific information needs questionnaire, which employed a Thurstonian paired comparisons approach. This consisted of all possible pairings of nine ‘‘core information needs’’, previously identified in adults with asthma (Caress, et al. Patient Educ Couns 2002;47:319–27), adapted for use with parents of children with asthma. Results: Parents of 29 children (child’s median age 8.0 years, IQ range 5.1–12.3; median time since asthma diagnosis 3.7 years) completed the survey. Information needs were prioritised as shown in the table (information needs with Thurstone scale values). Six (20%) respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with their level of information about their current top priority area, while six (20%) were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied. The majority of parents (25/29) were unable to identify additional information needs, while three parents highlighted the need for information on action to take when their child was unwell (that is, an asthma action plan). The majority of parents stated that they would most prefer to receive information from their child’s doctor (22/29) and/or asthma nurse (12/29). Main reasons for this choice were ‘‘confidence in their knowledge’’ and ‘‘familiarity with their child’s asthma’’. Conclusion: Further work is required to better understand why parents value specific items. Some parents identified the need for an asthma action plan. A larger study is now required to validate these findings, in particular to establish whether information about self-manag