Search

Background: The prevalence of patients with prostate cancer is increasing, and the first year after treatment is a vulnerable period for patients as they experience symptoms and unmet needs. Although electronic patient-reported outcomes that focus on patient self-management have demonstrated benefits, evidence is sparse regarding patients with prostate cancer in primary care settings and the role of nurses as a supportive resource. The significant role of primary care in future cancer care is on the agenda. This study aims to test the feasibility of a complex intervention that includes electronic patient-reported outcomes and self-management advice in an app, combined with nurse-led support, in primary care settings during the first year after curative intended prostate cancer treatment. Methods: The intervention lasted four weeks and was a single-arm study. Feasibility was assessed by examining the recruitment process, retention rate, adherence to the reporting of symptoms in the app, and acceptability of the intervention. Data was collected through (1) logged data from the app that included patient-reported outcomes and self-management advice, (2) field notes by the nurse, and (3) semi-structured interviews with patients. Descriptive statistics were applied to logged data. The interviews and the field notes were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: The recruitment rate was 55%, yielding 11 patients with high retention as all completed the intervention. Adherence to reporting was 100%, and all functions in the app were used. Individual variation in how patients used the app was found, which was attributed to patients' current needs. In total, 36 health dialogues with the nurse (virtual, face-to-face, telephone) were performed; all first dialogues lasted longer, while follow-ups were shorter. Patients described that the health dialogues covered relevant subjects and that the combination of using the app and health dialogues was tailored and provided supplementary support. No adverse events occurred; however, a few technical difficulties interfered with the intervention, and the patients gave valuable suggestions for improvement. Furthermore, patients suggested that the intervention should start immediately after treatment. Conclusion: As the patients adhered to and accepted the intervention, it was considered feasible. Findings suggest intervention should start directly after treatment ends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prostate cancer is one of the most common types of cancer in men and could occur without symptoms. Screening has been debated but remains controversial and, in most countries, organized population‐based screening does not exist. The aim of this study was to describe men's experiences of receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis after opportunistic screening. Methods: This study is a secondary analysis from interviews with 17 men (aged 56–80 years) who had undergone curative treatment for prostate cancer. Data were collected in an urban region of Sweden through interviews conducted face to face or by telephone. An inductive content analysis was used with Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research as a reporting checklist. Results: Two main categories were identified. Screening is a lifesaver enclosed by ethical dilemmas reflects how men considered screening as a lifesaving test. Testing was surrounded by injustice and an eagerness to encourage other men to undergo screening. Facing challenges during diagnosis reflects the men's experiences of being in an unknown field yet expected to engage in decision‐making concerning appropriate treatment. Receiving the diagnosis rendered mixed emotions about having a cancer disease, that the treatment could cause lifelong symptom distress and the men described being hesitant to talk about their diagnosis. Conclusions: The findings highlight men's opinions about screening and that the lack of routine screening represents injustice. The men considered this as an ethical question of lifesaving justice, while stakeholders may argue that screening could lead to unnecessary suffering and overtreatment. Men do not always talk openly about their diagnosis, linked to the fact that it concerns intimate areas. It is important to balance the information in relation to shared decision‐making regarding treatment. Health care professionals have an ethical responsibility to support and coach the patient in their decision. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was based on interviews with men who had experienced a diagnosis of prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]