Search

Simple Summary: This study examined the use of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid (BCS-PtDA) in eight Dutch hospitals. This PtDA supports information provision (including information about personalized recurrence risks) and decision-making about post-treatment surveillance. Health care professionals (HCPs) acknowledged that the tool helped make patients aware of their options but felt it increased their workload without clear benefits. While the tool was effective in presenting choices to patients, deliberation about the options was scarce. The main challenges were related to the extra time required and HCPs' perception of the tool's value. Risk communication was deemed generally adequate. The study suggests that, while the PtDA offers benefits, better integration and communication strategies are needed to enhance shared decision-making processes. In conclusion, the implementation of the BCS-PtDA led to choices being offered to patients. However, there is room for improvement in information provision and the application of shared decision-making. Background: To improve Shared decision-making (SDM) regarding personalized post-treatment surveillance, the Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid (BCS-PtDA), integrating personalized risk information, was developed and implemented in eight hospitals. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to (1) assess the implementation and participation rates, (2) identify facilitators and barriers for use by health care professionals (HCPs), (3) quantify the observed level of SDM, and (4) evaluate risk communication and SDM application in consultations. Methods: Implementation and participation rates and patients' BCS-PtDA use were calculated using hospital registry data and BCS-PtDA log data. HCPs' perspective on facilitators and barriers were collected using the MIDI framework. Observed SDM levels in consultation transcripts were quantified using the OPTION-5 scale. Thematic analysis was performed to assess consultation content. Results: The average PtDA implementation and participation rates were, respectively, 26% and 61%. HCPs reported that the PtDA supported choice awareness. Reported barriers for implementation were mainly increased workload and a lack of perceived benefits. The consultation analysis (n = 64) showed patients were offered a choice, but deliberation was lacking. Risk communication was generally adequate. Discussion: When the BCS-PtDA was used, patients were clearly given a choice regarding their post-treatment surveillance, but information provision and SDM application can be improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Value‐based healthcare (VBHC) focusses on increasing value for patients. Hospitals aim to implement VBHC via value improvement (VI) teams for medical conditions. To determine the patient's perspective on value, collective patient participation is important in these teams. We therefore evaluated the current state of patient participation in VI teams and share lessons learned. Methods: This mixed‐methods study was conducted at seven collaborating hospitals in the Netherlands. A questionnaire (the public and patient engagement evaluation tool) was tailored to the study's context, completed by VI team members (n = 147 from 76 different VI teams) and analysed with descriptive statistics. In addition, 30 semistructured interviews were held with VI team members and analysed through thematic analysis. Data were collected between February 2022 and January 2023 and were triangulated by mapping the quantitative results to the interview themes. Results: Thirty‐eight of the 76 included VI teams reported using a form of patient participation. Many respondents (71%) indicated a lack of a clear strategy and goal for patient participation. Multiple VI team members believed that specific knowledge and skills are required for patients to participate in a VI team, but this led to concerns regarding the representativeness of participating patients. Furthermore, while patients indicated that they experienced some level of hierarchy, they also stated that they did not feel restricted hereby. Lastly, patients were satisfied with their participation and felt like equal VI team members (100%), but they did mention a lack of feedback from the VI team on their input. Conclusion: The results imply the lack of full implementation of patient participation within VI teams. Guidelines should be developed that provide information on how to include a representative group of patients, which methods to use, how to evaluate the impact of patient participation, and how to give feedback to participating patients. Patient and Public Contribution: Two patient advisors were part of the research team and attended the research team meetings. They were involved as research partners in all phases of the study, including drafting the protocol (e.g., drafting interview guides and selecting the measurement instrument), interpreting the results and writing this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Breast cancer patients for whom less intensive surveillance is sufficient can be identified based on the risk for locoregional recurrences (LRRs). This study explores health care professionals' (HCPs) perspectives on less intensive surveillance, preferences for shared decision‐making (SDM) about surveillance and perspectives on the use of patients' estimated personal risk for LRRs in decision‐making about surveillance. Methods: We conducted semi‐structured interviews with 21 HCPs providing follow‐up care for breast cancer patients in seven Dutch teaching hospitals (Santeon hospitals). Results: HCPs were predominantly positive about less intensive surveillance for women with a low risk for recurrences. They mentioned important prerequisites such as clearly defined surveillance schedules based on risk categories, information provision and communication support for patients and HCPs. Most HCPs supported SDM about surveillance and were positive about using patients' estimated personal risk for LRRs. HCPs specified prerequisites such as clear visualisation and explanation of risk information, attention for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and defined surveillance schedules for specific risk groups. Conclusion: Mentioned prerequisites for less intensive surveillance need to be accounted for. Information needs and existing misconceptions need to be addressed. Outcome information regarding risks for LRRs and FCR can enrich the SDM process about surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundDuring a 6-week course of (chemo)radiation many head and neck cancer patients have to endure radiotherapy-induced toxicity, negatively affecting patients’ quality of life. Pretreatment counseling combined with self-help exercises could be provided to inform patients and possibly prevent them from having speech, swallowing, and shoulder problems during and after treatment. ObjectiveOur goal was to investigate the feasibility of a multimodal guided self-help exercise program entitled Head Matters during (chemo)radiation in head and neck cancer patients. MethodsHead and neck cancer patients treated with primary (chemo)radiation or after surgery were asked to perform Head Matters at home. This prophylactic exercise program, offered in three different formats, aims to reduce the risk of developing speech, swallowing, shoulder problems, and a stiff neck. Weekly coaching was provided by a speech and swallowing therapist. Patients filled out a diary to keep track of their exercise activity. To gain insight into possible barriers and facilitators to exercise adherence, reports of weekly coaching sessions were analyzed by 2 coders independently. ResultsOf 41 eligible patients, 34 patients were willing to participate (83% uptake). Of participating patients, 21 patients completed the program (64% adherence rate). The majority of participants (58%) had a moderate to high level of exercise performance. Exercise performance level was not significantly associated with age (P=.50), gender (P=.42), tumor subsite (P=1.00) or tumor stage (P=.20), treatment modality (P=.72), or Head Matters format (Web-based or paper) (P=1.00). Based on patients’ diaries and weekly coaching sessions, patients’ perceived barriers to exercise were a decreased physical condition, treatment-related barriers, emotional problems, lack of motivation, social barriers, and technical problems. Patients’ perceived facilitators included an increased physical condition, feeling motivated, and social and technical facilitators. ConclusionsHead Matters, a multimodal guided self-help exercise program is feasible for head and neck cancer patients undergoing (chemo)radiation. Several barriers (decreased physical condition, treatment-related barriers) and facilitators (increased physical condition, feeling motivated) were identified providing directions for future studies. The next step is conducting a study investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of Head Matters on speech, swallowing, shoulder function, and quality of life.

BackgroundAlthough peer-to-peer contact might empower patients in various ways, studies show that only a few patients actually engage in support groups. ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to explore factors that facilitate or impede engagement in face-to-face and online peer support, using the Theory of Planned Behavior. MethodsA questionnaire was completed by 679 patients being treated for arthritis, breast cancer, or fibromyalgia at two Dutch regional hospitals. ResultsOur results showed that only a minority of the patients engaged in organized forms of peer support. In total 10% (65/679) of the respondents had engaged in face-to-face meetings for patients in the past year. Only 4% (30/679) of the respondents had contact with peers via the Internet in the past year. Patients were more positive about face-to-face peer support than about online peer support (P < .001). In accordance with the Theory of Planned Behavior, having a more positive attitude (P < .01) and feeling more supported by people in the social environment (P < .001) increased the intention to participate in both kinds of peer support. In addition, perceived behavioral control (P = .01) influenced the intention to participate in online peer support. Nevertheless, the intention to engage in face-to-face and online peer support was only modestly predicted by the Theory of Planned Behavior variables (R2 = .33 for face-to-face contact and R2 = .26 for online contact). ConclusionAlthough Health 2.0 Internet technology has significantly increased opportunities for having contact with fellow patients, only a minority seem to be interested in organized forms of peer contact (either online or face-to-face). Patients seem somewhat more positive about face-to-face contact than about online contact.

Background Patients who visit online support groups benefit in various ways. Results of our earlier study indicated that participation in online support groups had a profound effect on the participants’ feelings of “being empowered.” However, most studies of online patient support groups have focused on the members of these groups who actively contribute by sending postings (posters). Thus far, little is known about the impact for “lurkers” (ie, those who do not actively participate by sending postings). Objective In the present study, we explored if lurkers in online patient support groups profit to the same extent as posters do. MethodsWe searched the Internet with the search engine Google to identify all Dutch online support groups for patients with breast cancer, fibromyalgia, and arthritis. Invitations to complete an online survey were sent out by the owners of 19 groups. In the online questionnaire, we asked questions about demographic and health characteristics, use of and satisfaction with the online support group, empowering processes, and empowering outcomes. The online questionnaire was completed by 528 individuals, of which 109 (21%) identified themselves as lurkers. Results Lurkers (mean age 47 years) were slightly older than active participants (mean age 43 years, P = .002), had a shorter disease history (time since diagnosis 3.7 years vs 5.4 years, P = .001), and reported lower mental well-being (SF 12 subscore 37.7 vs 40.5, P = .004). No significant differences were found in other demographic variables. Posters indicated visiting the online support groups significantly more often for social reasons, such as curiosity about how other members were doing, to enjoy themselves, as a part of their daily routine (all P < .001), and because other members expected them to be there (P = .003). Lurkers and posters did not differ in their information-related reasons for visiting the online support group. Lurkers were significantly less satisfied with the online support group compared to posters (P < .001). With regard to empowering processes such as “exchanging information” and “finding recognition,” lurkers scored significantly lower than posters. However, lurkers did not differ significantly from posters with regard to most empowering outcomes, such as “being better informed,” “feeling more confident in the relationship with their physician,” “improved acceptance of the disease,” “feeling more confident about the treatment,” “enhanced self-esteem,” and “increased optimism and control.” The exception was “enhanced social well-being,” which scored significantly lower for lurkers compared to posters (P < .001). Conclusion Our study revealed that participation in an online support group had the same profound effect on lurkers’ self-reported feelings of being empowered in several areas as it had on posters. Apparently, reading in itself is sufficient to profit from participation in an online patient support group.

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]