Follow-up Care After Treatment for Prostate Cancer: Protocol for an Evaluation of a Nurse-led Supported Self-management and Remote Surveillance Programme

Overview

Journal BMC Cancer

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Oncology

Date 2017 Sep 21

PMID 28927389

Citations 6

Authors

Jane Frankland

Hazel Brodie

Deborah Cooke

Claire Foster

Rebecca Foster

Heather Gage

Jake Jordan

Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray

Ruth Pickering

Alison Richardson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: As more men survive a diagnosis of prostate cancer, alternative models of follow-up care that address men's enduring unmet needs and are economical to deliver are needed. This paper describes the protocol for an ongoing evaluation of a nurse-led supported self-management and remote surveillance programme implemented within the secondary care setting.

Methods/design: The evaluation is taking place within a real clinical setting, comparing the outcomes of men enrolled in the Programme with the outcomes of a pre-service change cohort of men, using a repeated measures design. Men are followed up at four and 8 months post recruitment on a number of outcomes, including quality of life, unmet need, psychological wellbeing and activation for self-management. An embedded health economic analysis and qualitative evaluation of implementation processes are being undertaken.

Discussion: The evaluation will provide important information regarding the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and implementation of an integrated supported self-management follow-up care pathway within secondary care.

Citing Articles

Characteristics and Components of Self-Management Interventions for Improving Quality of Life in Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review.

Rimmer B, Brown M, Sotire T, Beyer F, Bolnykh I, Balla M Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(1).

PMID: 38201442 PMC: 10777971. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16010014.

Virtual care for prostate cancer survivorship: protocol for an evaluation of a nurse-led algorithm-enhanced virtual clinic implemented at five cancer centres across Canada.

Pham Q, Hearn J, Bender J, Berlin A, Brown I, Bryant-Lukosius D BMJ Open. 2021; 11(4):e045806.

PMID: 33883153 PMC: 8061848. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045806.

Exploring the experiences of patients, general practitioners and oncologists of prostate cancer follow-up: A qualitative interview study.

Taylor S, Johnson H, Peat S, Booker J, Yorke J Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2020; 48:101820.

PMID: 32932010 PMC: 7395829. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2020.101820.

Virtual care models for cancer survivorship.

Pham Q, Hearn J, Gao B, Brown I, Hamilton R, Berlin A NPJ Digit Med. 2020; 3:113.

PMID: 32923690 PMC: 7468136. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-020-00321-3.

Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: evaluation of a supported self-management and remote surveillance programme.

Frankland J, Brodie H, Cooke D, Foster C, Foster R, Gage H BMC Cancer. 2019; 19(1):368.

PMID: 31014282 PMC: 6480799. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-5561-0.

References

Emery J, Doorey J, Jefford M, King M, Pirotta M, Hayne D . Protocol for the ProCare Trial: a phase II randomised controlled trial of shared care for follow-up of men with prostate cancer. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(3):e004972. PMC: 3948582. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004972. View

Briggs A, Wonderling D, Mooney C . Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ. 1997; 6(4):327-40. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199707)6:4<327::aid-hec282>3.0.co;2-w. View

Paterson C, Robertson A, Smith A, Nabi G . Identifying the unmet supportive care needs of men living with and beyond prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2015; 19(4):405-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2014.12.007. View

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J . Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19(6):349-57. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042. View

Howell D, Hack T, Oliver T, Chulak T, Mayo S, Aubin M . Models of care for post-treatment follow-up of adult cancer survivors: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the evidence. J Cancer Surviv. 2012; 6(4):359-71. DOI: 10.1007/s11764-012-0232-z. View

Hibbard J, Mahoney E, Stockard J, Tusler M . Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure. Health Serv Res. 2005; 40(6 Pt 1):1918-30. PMC: 1361231. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00438.x. View

Cella D, Tulsky D, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A . The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993; 11(3):570-9. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570. View

McCorkle R, Ercolano E, Lazenby M, Schulman-Green D, Schilling L, Lorig K . Self-management: Enabling and empowering patients living with cancer as a chronic illness. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61(1):50-62. PMC: 3058905. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20093. View

. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990; 16(3):199-208. DOI: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. View

10.

Pickard A, Wilke C, Lin H, Lloyd A . Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007; 25(5):365-84. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200725050-00002. View

11.

Hodgkinson K, Butow P, Hunt G, Pendlebury S, Hobbs K, Lo S . The development and evaluation of a measure to assess cancer survivors' unmet supportive care needs: the CaSUN (Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs measure). Psychooncology. 2006; 16(9):796-804. DOI: 10.1002/pon.1137. View

12.

Watson E, Rose P, Frith E, Hamdy F, Neal D, Kastner C . PROSPECTIV-a pilot trial of a nurse-led psychoeducational intervention delivered in primary care to prostate cancer survivors: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(5):e005186. PMC: 4039860. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005186. View

13.

Hibbard J, Stockard J, Mahoney E, Tusler M . Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004; 39(4 Pt 1):1005-26. PMC: 1361049. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x. View

14.

Maddams J, Utley M, Moller H . Projections of cancer prevalence in the United Kingdom, 2010-2040. Br J Cancer. 2012; 107(7):1195-202. PMC: 3461160. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.366. View

15.

Godin G, Shephard R . A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1985; 10(3):141-6. View

16.

DeSantis C, Lin C, Mariotto A, Siegel R, Stein K, Kramer J . Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014; 64(4):252-71. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21235. View

17.

Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M . Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008; 337:a1655. PMC: 2769032. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a1655. View

18.

Des Jarlais D, Lyles C, Crepaz N . Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health. 2004; 94(3):361-6. PMC: 1448256. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.94.3.361. View

19.

Chambers S, Pinnock C, Lepore S, Hughes S, OConnell D . A systematic review of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer and their partners. Patient Educ Couns. 2011; 85(2):e75-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.027. View

20.

Watson E, Shinkins B, Frith E, Neal D, Hamdy F, Walter F . Symptoms, unmet needs, psychological well-being and health status in survivors of prostate cancer: implications for redesigning follow-up. BJU Int. 2015; 117(6B):E10-9. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13122. View