Reduced utilisation of specialist care among elderly cancer patients: a randomised study of a primary healthcare intervention

Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care: a scoping review

PURPOSE

This scoping review identifies and characterises reported barriers and facilitators to providing integrated cancer care reported in the international literature, and develops recommendations for clinical practice.

METHODS

This scoping review included literature published between 2009 and 2022 and describes the delivery of integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care sectors. Searches were conducted of an online database Ovid Medline and grey literature.

RESULTS

The review included thirty-two papers. Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care were identified in three core areas: (1) at an individual user level around patient-healthcare professional interactions, (2) at an organisational level, and (3) at a healthcare system level. The review findings identified a need for further training for primary care professionals on cancer care, clarity in the delineation of primary care and oncologist roles (i.e. who does what), effective communication and engagement between primary and secondary care, and the provision of protocols and guidelines for follow-up care in cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Information sharing and communication between primary and secondary care must improve to meet the increasing demand for support for people living with and beyond cancer. Delivering integrated pathways between primary and secondary care will yield improvements in patient outcomes and health economic costs.

Effects of structured involvement of the primary care team versus standard care after a cancer diagnosis on patient satisfaction and healthcare use: the GRIP randomised controlled trial

Background

The growing number of cancer survivors and treatment possibilities call for more personalised and integrated cancer care. Primary care seems well positioned to support this. We aimed to assess the effects of structured follow-up of a primary care team after a cancer diagnosis.

Methods

We performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial enrolling patients curatively treated for breast, lung, colorectal, gynaecologic cancer or melanoma. In addition to usual cancer care in the control group, patients randomized to intervention were offered a “Time Out consultation” (TOC) with the general practitioner (GP) after diagnosis, and subsequent follow-up during and after treatment by a home care oncology nurse (HON). Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with care (questionnaire: EORTC-INPATSAT-32) and healthcare utilisation. Intention-to-treat linear mixed regression analyses were used for satisfaction with care and other continuous outcome variables. The difference in healthcare utilisation for categorical data was calculated with a Pearson Chi-Square or a Fisher exact test and count data (none versus any) with a log-binomial regression.

Results

We included 154 patients (control n = 77, intervention n = 77) who were mostly female (75%), mainly diagnosed with breast cancer (51%), and had a mean age of 61 (SD ± 11.9) years. 81% of the intervention patients had a TOC and 68% had HON contact. Satisfaction with care was high (8 out of 10) in both study groups. At 3 months after treatment, GP satisfaction was significantly lower in the intervention group on 3 of 6 subscales, i.e., quality (− 14.2 (95%CI -27.0;-1.3)), availability (− 15,9 (− 29.1;-2.6)) and information provision (− 15.2 (− 29.1;-1.4)). Patients in the intervention group visited the GP practice and the emergency department more often ((RR 1.3 (1.0;1.7) and 1.70 (1.0;2.8)), respectively).

Conclusions

In conclusion, the GRIP intervention, which was designed to involve the primary care team during and after cancer treatment, increased the number of primary healthcare contacts. However, it did not improve patient satisfaction with care and it increased emergency department visits. As the high uptake of the intervention suggests a need of patients, future research should focus on optimizing the design and implementation of the intervention.

Trial registration

GRIP is retrospectively (21/06/2016) registered in the ‘Netherlands Trial Register’ (NTR5909).

Involving the general practitioner during curative cancer treatment: a systematic review of health care interventions

OBJECTIVE

The role of primary care providers (PCP) in the cancer care continuum is expanding. In the post-treatment phase, this role is increasingly recognised by policy makers and healthcare professionals. During treatment, however, the role of PCP remains largely undefined. This systematic review aims to map the content and effect of interventions aiming to actively involve the general practitioner (GP) during cancer treatment with a curative intent.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with cancer treated with curative intent.

DATA SOURCES

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCT), controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series focusing on interventions designed to involve the GP during curative cancer treatment were systematically identified from PubMed and EMBASE and were subsequently reviewed. Risk of bias was scored according to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group risk of bias criteria.

RESULTS

Five RCTs and one CCT were included. Interventions and effects were heterogeneous across studies. Four studies implemented interventions focussing on information transfer to the GP and two RCTs implemented patient-tailored GP interventions. The studies have a low-medium risk of bias. Three studies show a low uptake of the intervention. A positive effect on patient satisfaction with care was found in three studies. Subgroup analysis suggests a reduction of healthcare use in elderly patients and reduction of clinical anxiety in those with higher mental distress. No effects are reported on patients' quality of life (QoL).

CONCLUSION

Interventions designed to actively involve the GP during curative cancer treatment are scarce and diverse. Even though uptake of interventions is low, results suggest a positive effect of GP involvement on patient satisfaction with care, but not on QoL. Additional effects for vulnerable subgroups were found. More robust evidence for tailored interventions is needed to enable the efficient and effective involvement of the GP during curative cancer treatment.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018102253.

Use of shared care and routine tests in follow-up after treatment for localised cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Patients may decide to undertake shared care with a general practitioner (GP) during follow-up after treatment for localised melanoma. Routine imaging tests for surveillance may be commonly used despite no evidence of clinical utility. This study describes the frequency of shared care and routine tests during follow-up after treatment for localised melanoma.

METHODS

We randomly sampled 351 people with localised melanoma [American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) substages 0 - II] who had not had recurrent or new primary melanoma diagnosed from a total of 902 people diagnosed and treated for localised melanoma at a specialist centre in 2014. We interviewed participants by telephone about their experience of follow-up in the past year, and documented the proportion of patients who were undertaking shared care follow-up with a GP. We also recorded the frequency and type of investigations during follow-up. We calculated weighted estimates that are representative of the full inception cohort.

RESULTS

Of the 351 people who were invited to participate, 230 (66%) people consented to the telephone interview. The majority undertook shared care follow-up with a GP (61%). People who choose to have shared care follow-up with a GP are more likely to be male (p = 0.006), have lower AJCC stage (p for trend = 0.02), reside in more remote areas (p for trend< 0.001), and are less likely to have completed secondary school (p < 0.001). Few people saw a non-doctor health practitioner as part of their follow-up (9%). Many people report undergoing tests for melanoma, much of which may be routine tests for surveillance (37%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of people treated for a first primary localised melanoma at a specialist centre, without recurrent or new melanoma, choose to undertake shared care follow-up with a GP. Many appear to have routine diagnostic imaging as part of their melanoma surveillance.

Randomised controlled trial protocol (GRIP study): examining the effect of involvement of a general practitioner and home care oncology nurse after a cancer diagnosis on patient reported outcomes and healthcare utilization

BACKGROUND

Due to the ageing population and improving diagnostics and treatments, the number of cancer patients and cancer survivors is increasing. Policymakers, patients and professionals advocate a transfer of (part of) cancer care from the hospital environment to the primary care setting, as this could stimulate personalized and integrated care, increase cost-effectiveness and would better meet the patients' needs and expectations. The effects of structured active follow-up from primary care after cancer diagnosis have not been studied yet. Therefore the GRIP study aims to assess the effects of structured follow-up after a cancer diagnosis, by a primary care team including a general practitioner (GP) and a home care oncology nurse (HON), on satisfaction and healthcare utilization of patients treated with curative intent.

METHODS

We will conduct a multicentre, two-arm randomised controlled trial in The Netherlands. We plan to include 150 patients who will be treated with curative intent for either breast, lung, colorectal, gynaecologic cancer, or melanoma. Further inclusion criteria are: age 18 years and older, able to answer questionnaires in Dutch, GP agrees to participate and the possibility to include the patient before the start of treatment. All patients receive care as usual. The intervention arm will receive additional structured follow-up consisting of a GP consultation before onset of treatment to empower the patient for shared decision making with the specialist and a minimum of three contacts with the HON during and after treatment. Primary outcomes are: patient satisfaction with care at the level of specialist, GP and nurse and healthcare utilization. Secondary outcomes include: quality of life, employment status, patient empowerment, shared decision making, mental health and satisfaction with given information. Repeated questionnaires, filled in by the participants, will be assessed within the 1-year study period.

DISCUSSION

This randomised controlled trial will evaluate the effects of structured follow-up after a cancer diagnosis by a primary care team including a GP and HON, for patients undergoing treatment with curative intent. Results from the present study may provide the evidence needed to optimally rearrange responsibilities in cancer care delivery and consequently improve cancer care and patient related outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial number: NTR5909 .

Workforce characteristics and interventions associated with high-quality care and support to older people with cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the evidence base on the effectiveness of workforce interventions for improving the outcomes for older people with cancer, as well as analysing key features of the workforce associated with those improvements.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Relevant databases were searched for primary research, published in English, reporting on older people and cancer and the outcomes of interventions to improve workforce knowledge, attitudes or skills; involving a change in workforce composition and/or skill mix; and/or requiring significant workforce reconfiguration or new roles. Studies were also sought on associations between the composition and characteristics of the cancer care workforce and older people's outcomes. A narrative synthesis was conducted and supported by tabulation of key study data.

RESULTS

Studies (n=24) included 4555 patients aged 60+ from targeted cancer screening to end of life care. Interventions were diverse and two-thirds of the studies were assessed as low quality. Only two studies directly targeted workforce knowledge and skills and only two studies addressed the nature of workforce features related to improved outcomes. Interventions focused on discrete groups of older people with specific needs offering guidance or psychological support were more effective than those broadly targeting survival outcomes. Advanced Practice Nursing roles, voluntary support roles and the involvement of geriatric teams provided some evidence of effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

An array of workforce interventions focus on improving outcomes for older people with cancer but these are diverse and thinly spread across the cancer journey. Higher quality and larger scale research that focuses on workforce features is now needed to guide developments in this field, and review findings indicate that interventions targeted at specific subgroups of older people with complex needs, and that involve input from advanced practice nurses, geriatric teams and trained volunteers appear most promising.

Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions

BACKGROUND

Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than primary or specialty care alone; however, little is known about the effectiveness of shared care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary/specialty care interface. This is an update of a previously published review.Secondary questions include the following:1. Which shared care interventions or portions of shared care interventions are most effective?2. What do the most effective systems have in common?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 12 October 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

One review author performed the initial abstract screen; then two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the effectiveness of shared care interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care and community settings. The intervention was compared with usual care in that setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of results when possible and carried out a narrative synthesis of the remainder of the results. We presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table, using a tabular format to show effect sizes for all outcome types.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management (N = 18,859), 39 of which were RCTs, two CBAs and one an NRCT. Of these 42 studies, 41 examined complex multi-faceted interventions and lasted from six to 24 months. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from moderate to high certainty. Results showed probably few or no differences in clinical outcomes overall with a tendency towards improved blood pressure management in the small number of studies on shared care for hypertension, chronic kidney disease and stroke (mean difference (MD) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 5.25)(based on moderate-certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved, particularly in response to depression treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.62; six studies, N = 1708) and recovery from depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.26; 10 studies, N = 4482) in studies examining the 'stepped care' design of shared care interventions (based on high-certainty evidence). Investigators noted modest effects on mean depression scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; six studies, N = 3250). Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), processes of care and participation and default rates in shared care services were probably limited (based on moderate-certainty evidence). Studies probably showed little or no difference in hospital admissions, service utilisation and patient health behaviours (with evidence of moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that shared care improves depression outcomes and probably has mixed or limited effects on other outcomes. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may account in part for these limited effects. Review findings support the growing evidence base for shared care in the management of depression, particularly stepped care models of shared care. Shared care interventions for other conditions should be developed within research settings, with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and awareness of the need to carry out longer studies to test effectiveness and sustainability over time.

Primary Care Physicians' Perspectives of Their Role in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

As survival rates improve, cancer is increasingly considered a chronic illness associated with significant long-term burden and sequelae, both physical and psychological. Various models of cancer care, including primary care physician (PCP)-led and shared-care, have been proposed, though a systematic review of PCPs' perspectives of their role and challenges in providing cancer care remains lacking. This systematic review summarises available literature on PCPs' perspectives of their role in cancer care.

METHODS

Five databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) were systematically searched using keywords and MeSH headings for articles from 1993-2015 exploring PCPs' views of their role in the care of patients/survivors of both child and adult cancers. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts for full-text review, abstracted data and performed a quality assessment.

RESULTS

Thirty-five articles representing the perspectives of 10,941 PCPs were captured. PCPs' confidence to provide care varied according to cancer phase (e.g. treatment versus survivorship), care domain (e.g. acute medical care versus psychological late effects), and disease prevalence (e.g. breast malignancies versus childhood cancers), with preferences for shared- versus independent-care models varying accordingly. Barriers included a lack of timely and specific information/communication from oncologists and limited knowledge/lack of guidelines, as well as lack of time, remuneration and patient trust.

LIMITATIONS

The data was limited by a lack of consideration of the preferences of patients and oncologists, leading to uncertainty about the acceptability and feasibility of suggested changes to cancer care.

DISCUSSION

PCPs appear willing to provide cancer care for patients/survivors; however, they report barriers and unmet needs related to providing such care. Future research/interventions should take into account the preferences and needs of PCPs.

A pilot randomised controlled trial of personalised care after treatment for prostate cancer (TOPCAT-P): nurse-led holistic-needs assessment and individualised psychoeducational intervention: study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is common and the incidence is increasing, but more men are living longer after diagnosis, and die with their disease rather than of it. Nonetheless, specific and substantial physical, sexual, emotional and mental health problems often lead to a poor quality of life. Urology services increasingly struggle to cope with the demands of follow-up care, and primary care is likely to play the central role in long-term follow-up. The present phase II trial will evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led, person-centred psychoeducational intervention, delivered in community or primary care settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Prostate cancer survivors diagnosed in the past 9-48 months and currently biochemically stable will be identified from hospital records by their treating clinician. Eligible men would have either completed radical treatment, or would be followed up with prostate specific antigen monitoring and symptom reporting. We will recruit 120 patients who will be randomised to receive either an augmented form of usual care, or an additional nurse-led intervention for a period of 36 weeks. Following the health policy in Wales, the intervention is offered by a key worker, is promoting prudent healthcare and is using a holistic needs assessment. Outcome measures will assess physical symptoms, psychological well-being, confidence in managing own health and quality of life. Healthcare service use will be measured over 36 weeks. Feedback interviews with patients and clinicians will further inform the acceptability of the intervention. Recruitment, attrition, questionnaire completion rates and outcome measures variability will be assessed, and results will inform the design of a future phase III trial and accompanying economic evaluation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was granted by Bangor University and North Wales REC (13/WA/0291). Results will be reported in peer-reviewed publications, at scientific conferences, and directly through national cancer and primary care networks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN 34516019.

Cancer survivorship care: Implications for primary care advanced practice nurses

Cancer survivors are at risk for recurrences, new cancers, and late and long-term effects of cancer treatments. Health promotion and management of comorbid conditions remain a standard of care for cancer survivors. Nurse practitioners should collaborate with oncology specialists using a shared-care model in delivering survivorship care.

Psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

As the incidence and prevalence of prostate cancer continue to rise, the number of men needing help and support to assist them in coping with disease and treatment-related symptoms and their psychosocial effects is likely to increase.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer in improving quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy and knowledge and in reducing distress, uncertainty and depression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for trials using a range of electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to October 2013, together with handsearching of journals and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of psychosocial interventions for men at any stage of prostate cancer. We included psychosocial interventions that explicitly used one or a combination of the following approaches: cognitive behavioural, psychoeducational, supportive and counselling. Interventions had to be delivered or facilitated by trained or lay personnel.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed data using standardised mean differences (SMDs), random-effects models and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies comparing psychosocial interventions versus usual care in a total of 3204 men with prostate cancer were included in this review. All but three of these studies were conducted in the United States.Men in the psychosocial intervention group had a small, statistically significant improvement in the physical component of general health-related quality of life (GHQoL) at end of intervention (1414 participants, SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.22) based on low-quality evidence. A small improvement in favour of psychosocial interventions (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.47) was also seen in the physical component of GHQoL at end of intervention for group-based interventions. No clear evidence of benefit was found for GHQoL scores at end of intervention with individual-based interventions compared with controls. Also, no clear evidence suggested that psychosocial interventions were beneficial in improving the physical component of GHQoL at four to six and at eight to 12 months post-intervention. In addition, no clear evidence showed benefit associated with psychosocial interventions for the mental component of GHQoL at end of intervention (1416 participants, SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.06) based on moderate-quality evidence. Results for the mental component of GHQoL at four to six and at eight to 12 months post-intervention were compatible with benefit and harm. At end of intervention, cancer-related QoL showed a small improvement following psychosocial interventions (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.39), but at eight and 12 months, the effect was compatible with benefit and harm. For prostate cancer-specific and symptom-related QoL, the differences between groups were not significant.No clear evidence indicated that psychosocial interventions were beneficial in improving self-efficacy at end of intervention (337 participants, SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.38) based on very low-quality evidence in three studies that assessed individual-based interventions. The results for self-efficacy at six to eight and at 12 months post-intervention were compatible with benefit and harm. Men in the psychosocial intervention group had a moderate increase in prostate cancer knowledge at end of intervention (506 participants, SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71) based on very low-quality evidence in two studies; this increase was also observed in the subgroups of group-based and individual-based interventions. A small increase in knowledge with psychosocial interventions was noted at three months post-intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.58).The results for uncertainty (916 participants, SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.26) and distress (916 participants, SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.15) at end of intervention were compatible with both benefit and harm based on very low-quality evidence. No clear evidence suggests that psychosocial interventions were beneficial in reducing uncertainty and distress between groups at six to eight and at 12 months post-intervention. Finally, no clear evidence of benefit is associated with psychosocial interventions for depression at end of intervention (434 participants, SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.15) based on very low-quality evidence. Individual-based interventions significantly reduced depression when compared with usual care groups. The results for depression at six and at 12 months post-intervention were compatible with benefit and harm.The overall risk of bias in the included studies was unclear or high, primarily as the result of performance bias.No data regarding stage of disease or treatment with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were extractable for subgroup analysis. Only one study addressed adverse effects. High attrition could indicate that some participants may not have been comfortable with the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this review shows that psychosocial interventions may have small, short-term beneficial effects on certain domains of well-being, as measured by the physical component of GHQoL and cancer-related QoL when compared with usual care. Prostate cancer knowledge was also increased. However, this review failed to demonstrate a statistically significant effect on other domains such as symptom-related QoL, self-efficacy, uncertainty, distress or depression. Moreover, when beneficial effects were observed, it remained uncertain whether the magnitude of effect was large enough to be considered clinically important. The quality of evidence for most outcomes was rated as very low according to GRADE, reflecting study limitations, loss to follow-up, study heterogeneity and small sample sizes. We were unable to perform meaningful subgroup analyses based on disease stage or treatment modality. Although some findings of this review are encouraging, they do not provide sufficiently strong evidence to permit meaningful conclusions about the effects of these interventions in men with prostate cancer. Additional well-done and transparently reported research studies are necessary to establish the role of psychosocial interventions in men with prostate cancer.

Cost-utility analysis of individual psychosocial support interventions for breast cancer patients in a randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to explore the cost-utility in providing complementary individual psychosocial support to breast cancer patients compared with standard care (SC).

METHODS

Patients just starting adjuvant therapy (n = 168) at Uppsala University Hospital, Sweden, were consecutively included and randomized into three groups: psychosocial support from a specially trained nurse (INS), from a psychologist (IPS), or SC. Psychological effects and healthcare utilization were monitored during a 2-year period. The hospital billing system provided cost estimates. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using health-related quality of life data from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C-30) translated into the Euro Quality of Life- 5-Dimensional classification. On the basis of the medical cost offset, a cost-utility analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Health care utilization was mainly related to the breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. The intervention costs amounted to about €500 or 3% of the total costs. Total health care costs, including interventions cost, were lower in the INS (€18,670) and IPS (€20,419) groups than in the SC group (€25,800). The number of QALYs were also higher in the INS (1.52 QALY) and IPS (1.59 QALY) groups, compared with the SC group (1.43 QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-utility analysis revealed that, during adjuvant treatment for breast cancer, the individual psychosocial support interventions provided here was cost effective because the health care costs were lower and QALYs were higher compared to SC alone.

Australian general practitioners' preferences for managing the care of people diagnosed with cancer

AIM

To investigate general practitioners' (GPs) preferences for involvement in the management of people diagnosed with the seven most frequent cancers and any barriers to or concerns about an expanded role for GPs.

METHODS

A self-report survey was mailed to a random sample of 1969 Australian GPs.

RESULTS

In all, 33% (648) of GPs participated. Participants were a median of 50 years and worked 38 h per week; 53% were male and 68% practiced in metropolitan areas. Most participants preferred to be involved in cancer prevention (86%) and initial diagnosis (85%). Fewer were interested in monitoring for recurrence (70%), follow up after treatment (68%), coordinating psychological support (70%) and palliative care (68%). Only 52% of GPs had a preference for providing supportive care to manage the symptoms of cancer treatment, 45% for managing postoperative care and 40% for coordinating treatment. On multivariate analysis, preference for involvement in more aspects of cancer management increased with age (P = 0.030), if the GP practiced in rural compared to metropolitan areas (P = 0.005), was a partner in a practice compared to a sole practitioner (P = 0.003), had previously received cancer-specific training (P < 0.001) or was interested in future training (P < 0.001). Open responses identified limited time, communication and information transfer between GP and specialists as important barriers to involvement in cancer management.

CONCLUSION

While many GPs are currently involved in some aspects of cancer management, with training, good communication and support from specialists this role may be successfully expanded.

Interventions to improve continuity of care in the follow-up of patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Care from the family physician is generally interrupted when patients with cancer come under the care of second-line and third-line healthcare professionals who may also manage the patient's comorbid conditions. This situation may lead to fragmented and uncoordinated care, and results in an increased likelihood of not receiving recommended preventive services or recommended care.

OBJECTIVES

To classify, describe and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve continuity of cancer care on patient, healthcare provider and process outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, using a strategy incorporating an EPOC Methodological filter. Reference lists of the included study reports and relevant reviews were also scanned, and ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar were used to identify relevant reports having cited the studies included in this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (including cluster trials), controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series evaluating interventions to improve continuity of cancer care were considered for inclusion. We included studies that involved a majority (> 50%) of adults with cancer or healthcare providers of adults with cancer. Primary outcomes considered for inclusion were the processes of healthcare services, objectively measured healthcare professional, informal carer and patient outcomes, and self-reported measures performed with scales deemed valid and reliable. Healthcare professional satisfaction was included as a secondary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers described the interventions, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The authors contacted several investigators to obtain missing information. Interventions were regrouped by type of continuity targeted, model of care or interventional strategy and were compared to usual care. Given the expected clinical and methodological diversity, median changes in outcomes (and bootstrap confidence intervals) among groups of studies that shared specific features of interest were chosen to analyse the effectiveness of included interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were included. They used three different models, namely case management, shared care, and interdisciplinary teams. Six additional interventional strategies were used besides these models: (1) patient-held record, (2) telephone follow-up, (3) communication and case discussion between distant healthcare professionals, (4) change in medical record system, (5) care protocols, directives and guidelines, and (6) coordination of assessments and treatment.Based on the median effect size estimates, no significant difference in patient health-related outcomes was found between patients assigned to interventions and those assigned to usual care. A limited number of studies reported psychological health, satisfaction of providers, or process of care measures. However, they could not be regrouped to calculate median effect size estimates because of a high heterogeneity among studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from this Cochrane review do not allow us to conclude on the effectiveness of included interventions to improve continuity of care on patient, healthcare provider or process of care outcomes. Future research should evaluate interventions that target an improvement in continuity as their primary objective and describe these interventions with the categories proposed in this review. Also of importance, continuity measures should be validated with persons with cancer who have been followed in various settings.

Patients' and healthcare professionals' views of cancer follow-up: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cancer follow-up places a significant burden on hospital outpatient clinics. There are increasing calls to develop alternative models of provision.

AIM

To undertake a systematic review of qualitative studies examining patients' and healthcare professionals' views about cancer follow-up.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Systematic review.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care.

METHOD

Comprehensive literature searches included: 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of included studies. Eligible studies included qualitative studies examining patients' and healthcare professionals' views of cancer follow-up. Studies of patients with any type of cancer, considered free of active disease, or no longer receiving active treatment were included. Findings were synthesised using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included; seven were linked to randomised controlled trials. Eight studies examined the views of healthcare professionals (four of which included GPs) and 16 examined the views of patients. Twelve descriptive themes were identified, from which 12 perceived implications for practice were derived. Most themes related to conventional follow-up in secondary care. Some views concerning other models of care were based on participants' ideas, rather than experiences.

CONCLUSION

Patients' main concern is recurrent disease, and they find regular follow-up, expertise of specialists, and quick access to tests reassuring. Information regarding the effectiveness of follow-up is not given to patients who also have unmet information needs, which would help them to cope and be more involved. Continuity of care, unhurried consultations, and psychosocial support are important, but sometimes lacking in secondary care. GPs are thought to be unwilling and to have insufficient time and expertise to conduct follow-up.

Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cancer follow-up has traditionally been undertaken in secondary care, but there are increasing calls to deliver it in primary care.

AIM

To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary care follow-up of cancer patients, determine the effectiveness of the integration of primary care in routine hospital follow-up, and evaluate the impact of patient-initiated follow-up on primary care.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Systematic review.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care settings.

METHOD

A search was carried out of 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of included studies. The review included comparative studies or economic evaluations of primary versus secondary care follow-up, hospital follow-up with formal primary care involvement versus conventional hospital follow-up, and hospital follow-up versus patient-initiated or minimal follow-up if the study reported the impact on primary care.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference for patient wellbeing, recurrence rate, survival, recurrence-related serious clinical events, diagnostic delay, or patient satisfaction. GP-led breast cancer follow-up was cheaper than hospital follow-up. Intensified primary health care resulted in increased home-care nurse contact, and improved discharge summary led to increased GP contact. Evaluation of patient-initiated or minimal follow-up found no statistically significant impact on the number of GP consultations or cancer-related referrals.

CONCLUSION

Weak evidence suggests that breast cancer follow-up in primary care is effective. Interventions improving communication between primary and secondary care could lead to greater GP involvement. Discontinuation of formal follow-up may not increase GP workload. However, the quality of the data in general was poor, and no firm conclusions can be reached.

Utilisation of specialist care in patients with incurable rectal cancer. a population-based study from Western Norway

INTRODUCTION

About 25% of patients with rectal cancer have incurable disease at the time of diagnosis. In the current study from Western Norway (population of 981 000) we focused on the utilisation of specialist care in patients with primarily incurable rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1997 and 2002, 1 167 patients were diagnosed with rectal cancer, of whom 297 (25%) had incurable disease, according to consecutive and prospective reporting to the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. Consumption of specialist care facilities was studied with regard to outpatient contacts, hospital admissions, and various treatment modalities. Data were analysed with regard to age, sex, marital status, type of residence, and geographical access to hospital facilities. Data were available for 287 patients (97%).

RESULTS

The median age was 77 years. Elderly patients (>77 years) more often lived in nursing homes without a spouse. About 60% of the patients were treated with major surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy, either alone or in combination. Of those who did not receive such treatment, 87% were elderly. Oncological treatment, either alone or combined with surgery, predicted increased hospital admissions and outpatient contacts. Age >77 years predicted fewer hospital admissions. Survival varied statistically significantly with the various treatment modalities, and was highest for major resections combined with oncological treatment. The majority of the patients living at home died in hospitals (54%) and only 26% died in their homes, while two-thirds of residents of nursing homes died there.

DISCUSSION

Patients with primary incurable rectal cancer are heterogeneous with regard to their needs of treatment. While younger patients receive extensive tumour-related treatment, elderly patients are most commonly treated according to their symptoms. Prospective studies of the effect of various treatment options on the ease of symptoms and improved quality of life in unselected populations are needed.

Health-related quality of life and distress in cancer patients: results from a large randomised study

To compare the effectiveness of individual support, group rehabilitation and a combination of the two in improving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and psychological well-being in cancer patients during 24 months after diagnosis, as compared with standard care (SC). Furthermore, to compare the study sample and a random sample of the Swedish population with regard to HRQOL. A total of 481 consecutive patients, newly diagnosed with cancer, were randomly assigned to one of the four alternatives. Data on HRQOL and psychological well-being were collected at baseline and after 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. The interventions did not improve HRQOL or psychological well-being, as compared with SC. At 3 months, the study sample reported an HRQOL comparable with the normal population. Many cancer patients are able to manage their cancer-related concerns with the support available from SC. However, it is reasonable to assume that the findings suffer from a lack of data from especially vulnerable patients and a possible Hawthorne effect. It cannot be concluded that cancer patients have no need for additional psychosocial interventions. Future projects should include screening and target interventions for those at risk for significant and prolonged psychological distress.

Roles of the urologist and nurse from the perspective of patients with prostate cancer receiving luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue therapy

OBJECTIVES

To establish the roles of the urologist, general practitioner (GP) and nurse from the perspective of the patient with prostate cancer receiving hormone therapy, and to assess patient satisfaction, in particular with management and information needs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with prostate cancer receiving luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue (LHRH-a) therapy were recruited by a representative sample of 58 French urologists (March to April 2007) and invited to complete a 42-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

In all, 350 representative patients participated in the study; >90% were totally or quite satisfied with the information given by their urologist at diagnosis and the start of treatment. Their main contact during treatment was with the nurse who gave the injection (84% of patients). The nurse's main role was to provide clarity (60% of patients), guidance (35%) and support to the family (28%). Fewer patients discussed disease stage and progression with their nurse (29%) than with a doctor (urologist, 63%; or GP, 61%). Fewer also discussed treatment (24% vs 32%) but as many patients discussed the impact of their disease and treatment with their nurse as with their doctor (e.g. 33% discussed general health and fatigue with the nurse, vs 26% with the urologist). The need for contact with a health professional was greater during the early stages of treatment. Patients treated for <12 months with 3-monthly injections were less likely to be in favour of spacing injections than patients treated for >or=3 years.

CONCLUSION

The patient consults the urologist for reliable information on disease and treatment, and to the GP for further support, if needed, but the nurse has the pivotal role. A 3-monthly injection schedule enables regular face-to-face contact between the nurse and the patient and their family, and contributes towards the patient's coping strategies and quality of life.

Quality of life of elderly persons with cancer: a 6-month follow-up

The aim of this study was to investigate possible changes in quality of life (QoL) in elderly persons diagnosed with cancer (65 years and above), in relation to age, contact with the health-care system, activities of daily living, hope, social network and support. The investigation points were at time of diagnosis (baseline), and again 3 and 6 months after the diagnosis. The study also aimed to investigate which of the aforementioned factors predicted deteriorated QoL in elderly persons with cancer from baseline to the 6-month investigation. At baseline, the sample consisted of 101 individuals aged (age 65+) recently diagnosed with cancer (74 women, 27 men), but was reduced to 75 (57 women, 18 men) by the 6-month investigation point. EORTC QLQ C30, Katz ADL, Nowotny's Hope Scale and Interview Schedule for Social Interaction were used in structured personal interviews and questionnaires. Emotional function improved significantly over time, and complaints of nausea and vomiting decreased. Contact with a district nurse at baseline predicted deteriorated QoL from baseline to 6 months later. Support from grandchildren increased significantly. About 30% of the total sample deteriorated in QoL, by the significant >/=10 units, from baseline to 6-month follow-up, while about 70% remained stable in QoL from baseline. The majority of the elderly persons with cancer showed an ability to adjust to the new condition. However, in clinical practice, specific attention should be paid to the most vulnerable groups of elderly persons with cancer: those with advanced disease and decreased hope, and those with increased need of both informal and formal assistance.

Determinants of cancer patients' utilization of hospital care within two years after diagnosis

This study aimed to identify factors at diagnosis that are related to cancer patients' utilization of hospital care during the first 2 years after diagnosis, and thereby improve identification of patients with an increased need for close follow-up. Data from a prospective intervention study of psychosocial support and from a computerized patient administration system were used. A total of 393 newly diagnosed patients were included. Hierarchical regression analyses were performed to determine whether the addition of information regarding age, comorbidity, functional status, symptoms, and socioeconomic variables improved the prediction of utilization of specialist inpatient care beyond that afforded by cancer-related factors. In addition to cancer diagnosis and treatment, comorbidity, physical function, and pain determined use of inpatient care. Patients living in rural areas and those with a low income utilized hospital care more often. The results suggest that thorough assessment can identify patients at diagnosis with an increased need for follow-up, e.g. intensified home care services.