Search

Little is known about the impacts of fatigue after cancer treatment, including whether cancer-related fatigue impacts people's use of healthcare. This study sought to examine how cancer-related fatigue impacts healthcare use after completing cancer treatment. A population-based survey was administered in Nova Scotia, Canada, to examine survivors' experiences and needs after completing cancer treatment. Respondents included survivors of breast, melanoma, colorectal, prostate, hematologic, and young adult cancers who were 1–3 years post-treatment. Survey responses were linked to cancer registry, physicians' claims, hospitalization, and ambulatory care data. Data were analyzed descriptively and using regression models. The final study cohort included 823 respondents. Younger respondents reported higher levels of cancer-related fatigue compared to older respondents. More females than males reported cancer-related fatigue. Upon adjusted analyses, those with cancer-related fatigue had lower odds of being discharged to primary care for their cancer-related follow-up (odds ratio = 0.71, p = 0.029). Moreover, those with cancer-related fatigue had 19% higher primary care use (incidence rate ratio = 1.19, p < 0.0001) and 37% higher oncology use (incidence rate ratio = 1.37, p < 0.016) during the follow-up period compared to those without cancer-related fatigue. Providers (oncology and primary care) may require additional support to identify clinically relevant fatigue and refer patients to appropriate resources and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Violence is recognised as a cause of health harm, but it is not consistently or adequately captured in healthcare data systems. While administrative health records could be valuable sources of information for measuring violence, they remain underutilised in violence-related research. The present research aims to examine the suitability of violence indicators in emergency care, primary care, and linked healthcare datasets. Descriptive analyses were conducted with the 2015/16 Hospital Episode Statistics Accident and Emergency (HES A&E) and the 2021/22 Emergency Care Data Set (ECDS). The potential of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and the South Wales Violence Surveillance dataset (a police and emergency department (ED) dataset linked by Public Health Wales) were shown using available evidence. Among the discussed datasets, the South Wales Violence Surveillance dataset has the most detail about violent acts and their contexts, while the CPRD includes a more extensive range of socioeconomic factors about patients and extensive linkage with other datasets. Currently, detailed safeguarding information is routinely removed from the ECDS extracts provided to researchers, limiting its utility for violence research. In the HES A&E, only physical violence was consistently recorded. Addressing these issues has the potential to improve the use of health administrative data in research on violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary care-led follow-up is a safe and acceptable alternative to oncologist-led follow-up. We sought to investigate patterns of primary care use during cancer follow-up care. Methods We identified all persons in Nova Scotia, diagnosed with an invasive breast, prostate, colorectal, or gynecologic cancer between January 2006 and December 2013. We linked this dataset to cancer centre, hospital discharge abstracts, physicians' billing, and census data. We identified a survivor cohort (n = 12,201), then descriptively examined primary care use during follow-up care. Multivariate Poisson and negative binomial regression, respectively, were used to examine primary care use for two outcomes: total number of primary care provider (pcp) visits (all reasons) and total number of cancer-specific pcp visits. Results The mean numbers of pcp visits (all reasons) and cancer-specific pcp visits per year for survivors who did not receive cancer centre follow-up (cc-fup) were 8.12 and 0.43 visits, respectively, and for survivors who continued to receive cc-fup were 8.75 and 0.63 visits, respectively. Age, cancer type, stage at diagnosis, comorbidity scores, year of diagnosis, and receipt of cc-fup were associated with both outcomes. Compared with prostate cancer survivors, breast, colorectal, and gynecologic cancer survivors had, respectively, 56%, 69%, and 56% fewer expected cancer-specific PCP visits. Receipt of cc-fup increased the expected number of pcp visits (all reasons) by 12% and cancer-specific pcp visits by 50%. Conclusions Primary care use was higher in survivors who continued to visit their oncology teams for follow-up. This suggests that survivors who remain with their oncology teams after treatment continue to have high needs not met by these teams alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The collection of patient reported outcomes (PROS) is a standard of care in many cancer organizations. In Alberta, PROS have been integrated into routine clinical practice since 2012. This longitudinal collection of PROS provides a wealth of data and a unique research opportunity to improve cancer care. The goal of this PRO data initiative is to establish a robust repository of information for ongoing clinical care and research focused on PROS. In this paper, we describe the rationale, scope, and design of this initiative. Implementation The initiative consists of PROS and other administrative health data from the province of Alberta. Retrieval of health data from a variety of provincially governed sources will create a platform of information on PROS, health outcomes, cancer data, other health conditions, and demographics. The aims of the initiative are to use the data to inform best practices at the point of care; to conduct health services research, particularly clinical epidemiology studies; and to evaluate a variety of PRO-related outcomes. Discussion Because this effort represents our first to integrate routinely collected PROS with other administrative health data, a unique and robust data repository will be created. The ability to integrate various types of data will provide a comprehensive mechanism to evaluate a variety of outcomes. Because cancer care in Alberta is governed by a single health care system, the data linkages will include population health and psychosocial cancer data. We anticipate that research related to this initiative will ultimately help to inform more patient-centred care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Rising demand on cancer system resources, alongside mounting evidence that demonstrates the safety and acceptability of primary care-led follow-up care, has resulted in some cancer centres discharging patients back to primary care after treatment. At the same time, the ways in which routine cancer follow-up care is provided across Canada continue to vary widely. The objectives of the present study were to investigate patterns of routine follow-up care at a cancer centre for breast, colorectal, gynecologic, and prostate cancer survivors; factors associated with receipt of follow-up care at a cancer centre; and changes in follow-up care at a cancer centre over time. Methods We identified all people diagnosed in Nova Scotia with an invasive breast, colorectal, gynecologic, or prostate cancer between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2013. We linked the resulting population-based dataset, at the patient level, to cancer centre or clinic data and to census data. We identified a nonmetastatic survivor cohort (n = 12,267) and developed decision rules to differentiate routine from non-routine visits during the follow-up care period (commencing 1 year after diagnosis). Descriptive statistics were computed to describe the patterns of routine follow-up care at a cancer centre. Negative binomial regression was used to examine factors associated with visits made and changes over time. Results Nearly half the survivors (48.4%) had at least 1 follow-up visit to the cancer centre, with variation by disease site (range: 30.2%-62.4%). Disease site and stage at diagnosis were associated with receipt of follow-up care at a cancer centre. For instance, compared with breast cancer survivors, survivors of gynecologic cancer had more visits [incidence rate ratio (irr): 1.48; 95% confidence interval (ci): 1.34 to 1.64], and survivors of colorectal cancer had fewer visits (irr: 0.45; 95% ci: 0.40 to 0.51). Year of diagnosis was associated with follow-up at a cancer centre, with each successive calendar year being associated with an 8% increase in visits made (irr: 1.08; 95% ci: 1.07 to 1.10). Conclusions Despite evidence that follow-up care can be effectively and safely delivered in primary care, and despite intensifying demands on oncology services, many survivors continue to receive routine follow-up care at a cancer centre. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective and efficient delivery of healthcare services requires comprehensive collaboration and coordination between healthcare entities and their complex inter-reliant activities. This inter-relation and coordination lead to different networks among diverse healthcare stakeholders. It is important to understand the varied dynamics of these networks to measure the efficiency of healthcare delivery services. To date, however, a work that systematically reviews these networks outlined in different studies is missing. This article provides a comprehensive summary of studies that have focused on networks and administrative health data. By summarizing different aspects including research objectives, key research questions, adopted methods, strengths and weaknesses, this research provides insights into the inherently complex and interlinked networks present in healthcare services. The outcome of this research is important to healthcare management and may guide further research in this area.