Search

Objective: Follow‐up after breast cancer can be divided into surveillance and aftercare. It remains unclear how follow‐up can ideally be organised from the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs). The aim of this study was to gain insight in the organisation of follow‐up in seven Dutch teaching hospitals and to identify best practices and opportunities for improvement of breast cancer (all stages) follow‐up as proposed by HCPs. Methods: Semi‐structured in‐depth group interviews were performed, one in each of the participating hospitals, with in total 16 HCPs and 2 patient advocates. To describe the organisation of follow‐up, transcripts were analysed using a deductive approach. Best practices and opportunities were derived using an inductive approach. Results: Variation was found in the organisation of aftercare, especially in timing, frequency, and disciplines of involved HCPs. Less variation was observed for surveillance, which was guided by the national guideline. Best practices focused on case management and adequate collaboration between HCPs of different disciplines. Mentioned opportunities were improving the structured monitoring of patients' needs and a comprehensive guideline for organisation and content of aftercare. Conclusions: Variation in follow‐up existed between hospitals. Shared decision‐making (SDM) about surveillance is desirable to ensure that surveillance matches the patient needs, preferences, and personal risk for recurrences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Meaning-centered group psychotherapy for cancer survivors (MCGP-CS) improves meaning, psychological well-being, and mental adjustment to cancer and reduces psychological distress. This randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the cost-utility of MCGP-CS compared with supportive group psychotherapy (SGP) and care-as-usual (CAU).Methods: In total, 170 patients were randomized to MCGP-CS, SGP, or CAU. Intervention costs, direct medical and nonmedical costs, productivity losses, and health-related quality of life were measured until 6 months follow-up, using the TIC-P, PRODISQ, data from the hospital information system, and the EQ-5D. The cost-utility was calculated by comparing mean cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).Results: Mean total costs ranged from €4492 (MCGP-CS) to €5304 (CAU). Mean QALYs ranged .507 (CAU) to .540 (MCGP-CS). MCGP-CS had a probability of 74% to be both less costly and more effective than CAU, and 49% compared with SGP. Sensitivity analyses showed these findings are robust. If society is willing to pay €0 for one gained QALY, MCGP-CS has a 78% probability of being cost-effective compared with CAU. This increases to 85% and 92% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of €10 000 and €30 000, which are commonly accepted thresholds.Conclusions: MCGP-CS is highly likely a cost-effective intervention, meaning that there is a positive balance between the costs and gains of MCGP-CS, in comparison with SGP and CAU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Body image is acknowledged as an important aspect of health-related quality of life in cancer patients. The Body Image Scale (BIS) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to evaluate body image in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to systematically review measurement properties of the BIS among cancer patients.Methods: A search in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science was performed to identify studies that investigated measurement properties of the BIS (Prospero ID 42017057237). Study quality was assessed (excellent, good, fair, poor), and data were extracted and analyzed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology on structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing for construct validity, and responsiveness. Evidence was categorized into sufficient, insufficient, inconsistent, or indeterminate.Results: Nine studies were included. Evidence was sufficient for structural validity (one factor solution), internal consistency (α = 0.86-0.96), and reliability (r > 0.70); indeterminate for measurement error (information on minimal important change lacked) and responsiveness (increasing body image disturbance in only one study); and inconsistent for hypothesis testing (conflicting results). Quality of the evidence was moderate to low. No studies reported on cross-cultural validity.Conclusion: The BIS is a PROM with good structural validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability, but good quality studies on the other measurement properties are needed to optimize evidence. It is recommended to include a wider variety of cancer diagnoses and treatment modalities in these future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined partners of cancer patients intention to use a web-based psychological intervention, their preferences regarding its preconditions, functionalities and topics, and factors related to their intention. One hundred and sixty-eight partners completed a questionnaire about these aspects. Forty-eight percent of the partners would (maybe) make use of a web-based intervention. Partners who intended to participate were significantly younger, used the Internet more often, and perceived more caregiver strain. Most partners preferred an intervention that takes less than 1 hour/week, lasts five weeks or more, and contains information and peer support. Half of the partners would like to receive online guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Evidence-based, easily accessible, supportive interventions for partners of cancer patients are limited, despite the fact that they often suffer from diminished emotional, social, physical, and relational functioning. To develop a new intervention that will fit their demands, it is important to consult potential users. Objective: To examine partners' interest in a Web-based psychological intervention and to identify their needs and wishes regarding such an intervention. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 16 partners of cancer patients, who varied in terms of age, gender, education, employment, type, and stage of disease. Partners were asked (1) whether they would use a psychological Web-based intervention and which preconditions (maximum time, structure, participate alone or with their partner) it should meet; (2) which functionalities (information, peer support, online psychological counseling) the intervention should contain; and (3) which topics (eg, taking care of oneself) should be addressed. Data were coded by 2 coders independently. Results: The need for a Web-based intervention varied. Arguments for being interested in a Web-based intervention included the need for acknowledgement; the need for someone they could talk to; and the need for information, tips, and support. Based on their experiences as a partner of a cancer patient, participants would prefer an intervention that is not too time-consuming (about 1-2 hours a week) and which is based on a "step-by-step" approach, meaning that the content of the intervention should match the stage of their partner's disease. Also, they would prefer a positive approach, which means that the intervention should be a source of hope and energy. Most participants stated that they would prefer to participate without their ill spouse, because they do not want to burden their partners with their own problems. An intervention should contain information and optional peer support. Participants' opinions about online psychological counseling in the intervention were divided. Arguments for online psychological counseling were that a professional could check on them and they were able to ask questions. Arguments against online counseling were that partners were not in need for guidance or they had enough support from usual care. Topics with the highest priority were "coping with feelings and emotions," "should I or shouldn't I spare my partner?," "communicating with each other," "asking for help and refusing help," and "moving on with life after cancer treatment." Furthermore, participants suggested additional topics of "dare to enjoy" and "acceptance of the patient's disease." Conclusions: A Web-based intervention can be a valuable addition to existing support initiatives for partners of cancer patients. This study provides important information about the content and form of such an intervention. Flexibility and a positive approach seem to be the most important features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Meaning-focused coping may be at the core of adequate adjustment to life after cancer. Cancer survivors who experience their life as meaningful are better adjusted, have better quality of life and psychological functioning. Meaning-Centered Group Psychotherapy for Cancer Survivors (MCGP-CS) was designed to help patients to sustain or enhance a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives. The aim of the proposed study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MCGP-CS. Methods/design Survivors diagnosed with cancer in the last 5 years and treated with curative intent, are recruited via several hospitals in the Netherlands. After screening, 168 survivors are randomly assigned to one of the three study arms: 1. Meaning-Centered Group Psychotherapy (MCGP-CS) 2. Supportive group psychotherapy (SGP) 3. Care as usual (CAU). Baseline assessment takes place before randomisation, with follow up assessments post-intervention and at 3, 6 and 12 months follow-up. Primary outcome is meaning making (PMP, PTGI, SPWB). Secondary outcome measures address quality of life (EORTC-30), anxiety and depression (HADS), hopelessness (BHS), optimism (LOT-R), adjustment to cancer (MAC), and costs (TIC-P, EQ-5D, PRODISQ). Discussion Meaning-focused coping is key to adjustment to life after cancer, however, there is a lack of evidence based psychological interventions in this area. Many cancer survivors experience feelings of loneliness and alienation, and have a need for peer support, therefore a group method in particular, can be beneficial for sustaining or enhancing a sense of meaning. If this MCGP-CS is effective for cancer survivors, it can be implemented in the practice of psycho- oncology care. Trial registration NTR3571 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigation of the feasibility of recruitment through nurses of patients with incurable cancer, and the feasibility (adoption, usage) and nurses' evaluation of a nurse-led self-management support intervention, integrated in continuity home visits and based on the 5 A's Behavior Change Model. Questionnaire, registrations, evaluation forms, and interviews. Recruitment was complicated; many patients were ineligible for participation, nurses appeared protective of their patients (gatekeeping), and recruitment during the first continuity home visit appeared to be a barrier as a lot of other issues had to be discussed. The adoption rate was 81%, meaning that 18 out of 22 nurses recruited were willing to use the intervention. The usage rate at the nurse level was 56%, meaning that 10 nurses applied the intervention in full (having applied all five A's) in at least one patient. Nurses used the intervention in full in 21 out of the 36 patients included, implying a usage rate at the patient level of 58%. Nurses' mean general satisfaction score for the intervention was 7.57 (range 0–10). Nurse were especially positive about the 5 A's model, and considered the continuity home visits to be an appropriate setting for the intervention. Timing of recruitment and gatekeeping complicated recruitment of patients through nurses. Although nurses were positive about the intervention, nurses often did not fully apply the intervention. To improve its usage, it is suggested that nurses should first be trained in using the 5 A's model. • Nurses regarded continuity home visits an appropriate setting for the intervention. • Nurses were positive about the 5 A's model for structuring self-management support. • Usage rates showed that 'Assist' and 'Arrange' of the 5 A's model are applied least. • Nurses need extra training in applying the A's Assist and Arrange of the 5A's model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]