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

What is the evidence behind cancer care reviews, a primary care cancer support tool? A scoping review

PURPOSE

A "cancer care review" (CCR) is a conversation between a patient recently diagnosed with cancer and primary care practitioner soon after a diagnosis of cancer in the UK. This scoping review aimed to identify: methodology and validated outcome measures used to evaluate CCRs, the impact of CCRs on quality of life or symptoms, and the views of patients, their carers and healthcare professionals on CCRs.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed and five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were searched systematically from January 2000 to March 2022.

RESULTS

Of 4133 articles, ten met the inclusion criteria. These included surveys, qualitative research on stakeholders' views and a small study evaluating group consultation CCRs. There were no studies on methodology to evaluate CCRs or the impact of CCRs on patient quality of life or symptoms. Some primary care professionals felt CCRs were a tick-box exercise, and that they had inadequate time to deliver care, compounded by inadequate primary-secondary care coordination and lack of expertise which was echoed by patients. Interviews with patients found few recalled CCRs and those that recalled CCRs did, did not find them particularly helpful. Partners of patients would welcome CCRs to raise personal health concerns and remain updated on patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies should identify the role that stakeholders believe they should have in CCRs, improve care coordination between primary care and secondary care and how to support caregivers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of CCRs in general practice.

Factors influencing the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The increasing incidence of cancer, coupled with improved survivorship, has increased demand for cancer follow-up care and the need to find alternative models of care. Shared cancer follow-up care in general practice is a safe option in terms of quality of life and cancer recurrence; however, there are barriers to translating this into practice. This review aimed to identify factors that influence the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice.

METHODS

Systematic review. Seven electronic databases: MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, APA Psychinfo, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition and Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, were searched for published papers between January 1999 and December 2021. The narrative review included papers if they were available in full-text, English, peer-reviewed and focused on shared cancer follow-up care.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight papers were included in the final review. Five main themes emerged: (1) reciprocal clinical information sharing is needed between oncologists and general practitioners, and needs to be timely and relevant; (2) responsibility of care should be shared with the oncologist overseeing care; (3) general practitioners skills and knowledge to provide cancer follow-up care; (4) need for clinical management guidelines and rapid referral to support general practitioners to provide shared follow-up care and (5) continuity of care and satisfaction of care is vital for shared care.

CONCLUSION

The acceptability of shared cancer follow-up care is increasing. Several barriers still exist to translating this into practice. Work is required to develop a shared-care model that can support general practitioners, while the oncologist can oversee the care and implement two-way communication between general and oncologists' clinics. The move towards integrating electronic healthcare records and web-based platforms for information exchange provides a promise to the timely exchange of information.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020191538.

Specialist versus Primary Care Prostate Cancer Follow-Up: A Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Simple Summary

Worldwide, there is an increased focus on reorganizing prostate cancer survivorship care. In this study, we describe for the first time a process evaluation as part of a randomized controlled trial that is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. We found that within an RCT context, 67% patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. Patients who received primary care-based follow-up care experienced this to be more personal, efficient, and sustainable. However, patients, GPs, and specialists also indicated several challenges that are described in this study and should be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.

Abstract

Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.

Implementing a Health Care Professional-Supported Digital Intervention for Survivors of Cancer in Primary Care: Qualitative Process Evaluation of the Renewed Intervention

Background

Primary care plays an important role in supporting survivors of cancer; however, support is limited because of practitioners’ perceived lack of expertise and time. A digital intervention for survivors of cancer could provide an efficient way for primary care staff to support survivors of cancer without the need to accumulate expertise and skills to help patients make behavior changes; providing very brief support alongside this could maximize adherence to digital interventions. Renewed is a digital intervention that combines web-based behavior change advice with brief health care practitioner support from a nurse or health care assistant. Knowledge about the views and experiences of primary care staff providing support alongside a digital intervention for survivors of cancer is sparse, limiting the understanding of the acceptability and feasibility of this type of intervention.

Objective

This study aims to explore supporters’ experiences of providing support to survivors of cancer using Renewed, understand potential barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of Renewed in practice, and investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the intervention from the perspective of health care professionals.

Methods

This was a qualitative process evaluation nested within a large trial evaluating Renewed. A total of 28 semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with nurses and health care assistants. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Four themes were developed during the analysis, which reflected the factors that supporters identified as hindering or enabling them to provide support alongside Renewed Online: Renewed Online as an acceptable digital tool with some improvements, confidence in enacting the supporter role, practicalities of delivering support alongside a digital intervention, and managing a patient-led approach. The analysis suggests that supporters perceived that a digital intervention such as Renewed would be beneficial in supporting survivors of cancer in primary care and fit within current practices. However, barriers to providing support alongside the intervention were also identified, including concerns about how to facilitate rapport building and, in a minority, concerns about using a nondirective approach, in which most advice and support is provided through digital interventions, with brief additional support provided by primary care staff.

Conclusions

These findings add to the literature on how best to provide support alongside digital interventions, suggesting that although most practitioners cope well with a nondirective approach, a minority requires more training to feel confident in implementing this. This study suggests that the barriers to providing formal support to survivors of cancer in primary care could be successfully overcome with an approach such as Renewed, where a digital intervention provides most of the support and expertise, and health care practitioners provide additional brief human support to maximize engagement. Strategies to maximize the chances of successful implementation for this type of intervention are also discussed.