Survivorship in Colorectal Cancer: A Cohort Study of the Patterns and Documented Content of Follow-Up Visits

Colorectal cancer survivors' experiences and views of shared and telehealth models of survivorship care: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The number of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors is increasing and current models of survivorship care are unsustainable. There is a drive to implement alternative models of care including shared care between general practitioners (GPs) and hospital-based providers. The primary objective of this study was to explore perspectives on facilitators and barriers to shared care. The secondary objective was to explore experiences of telehealth-delivered care.

METHOD

Qualitative data were collected via semi-structured interviews with participants in the Shared Care for Colorectal Cancer Survivors (SCORE) randomised controlled trial. Interviews explored patient experiences of usual and shared survivorship care during the SCORE trial. In response to the COVID pandemic, participant experiences of telehealth appointments were also explored. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty survivors of CRC were interviewed with an even number in the shared and usual care arms; 14 (70%) were male. Facilitators to shared care included: good relationships with GPs; convenience of GPs; good communication between providers; desire to reduce public health system pressures. Barriers included: poor communication between clinicians; inaccessibility of GPs; beliefs about GP capacity; and a preference for follow-up care with the hospital after positive treatment experiences. Participants also commonly expressed a preference for telehealth-based follow-up when there was no need for a clinical examination.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of few studies that have explored patient experiences with shared and telehealth-based survivorship care. Findings can guide the implementation of these models, particularly around care coordination, communication, preparation, and personalised pathways of care.

Development and psychometric properties of Health-Promoting Lifestyle Scale in Colorectal Cancer Survivors (HPLS-CRCS): a mixed-method study

BACKGROUND

Detecting a health-promoting lifestyle in colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors is of paramount importance to manage disease complications, prevent their recurrence, and enhance survival; however, no specialized tool has yet been provided to measure the lifestyle of these patients. Accordingly, this study aimed to develop and determine the psychometric properties of the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Scale in CRC Survivors (HPLS-CRCS).

METHODS

This study was a mixed study with an exploratory sequential design in two phases. Concept analysis was performed in the first phase according to Schwartz-Barcott and Kim's (2000) hybrid model to explain the concept, identify dimensions, and generate items. In the second phase, psychometrics including validity (face, content, and construct) and reliability (internal consistency and stability) were determined. Responsiveness, interpretability, ease of use, item weighting, and scale scoring were also determined.

RESULTS

After explaining the concept, an initial scale encompassing 211 items was developed, content and item analyses were conducted, and the items decreased to 89 items after the face validity assessment. For construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with a sample size of 500 survivors, and convergent validity was performed for the Persian version of the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP-II). Accordingly, 80 items were classified into six factors: activity and rest, spiritual growth, health responsibility, nutrition, interpersonal relationships, and psychological management, with RMSEA = 0.055, χ2/df = 2.484, and χ2 = 6816.516. The reliability of the scale was confirmed, Cronbach's alpha was between 0.865 and 0.928, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the standard error of measurement (SEM), the minimal important change (MIC), and the smallest detectable change (SDC) were 0.896, 3.36, 13.86, and 19.87, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The HPLS-CRCS consists of 80 items in six dimensions and is a valid and reliable scale for evaluating the health-promoting lifestyle in CRC survivors. Using this scale to evaluate the healthy lifestyle in these survivors can lead healthcare providers to detect deficiencies and plan the lifestyle of CRC survivors during the post-treatment period.

Impact of a Personal Health Record Intervention Upon Surveillance Among Colorectal Cancer Survivors: Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

There are currently an estimated 1.5 million individuals living in the United States with colorectal cancer (CRC), and although the 5-year survival rate has increased, survivors are at risk for recurrence, particularly within the first 2-3 years after treatment. National guidelines recommend continued surveillance after resection to identify recurrence early on. Adherence among survivors ranges from 23% to 94%. Novel interventions are needed to increase CRC survivors' knowledge and confidence in managing their cancer and thus to increase adherence to follow-up surveillance.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to develop and test the feasibility and efficacy of a stand-alone, web-based personal health record (PHR) to increase surveillance adherence among CRC survivors, with patient beliefs about surveillance as secondary outcomes.

METHODS

A pre- and postintervention feasibility trial was conducted testing the efficacy of the colorectal cancer survivor (CRCS)-PHR, which had been previously developed using an iterative, user-centered design approach.

RESULTS

The average age of the sample was 58 (SD 9.9) years, with 57% (16/28) male and the majority married (20/28, 71%) and employed full-time (15/28, 54%). We observed a significant increase in adherence to colonoscopy (before: 11/21, 52% vs after: 18/21, 86%; P=.005) and CEA (14/21, 67% vs 20/21, 95%; P=.01), as well as a slight increase in CT scans (14/21, 67% vs 18/21, 86%; P=.10). The only significant impact on secondary outcome (patient beliefs) was benefits of CEA test (P=.04), as most of the beliefs were high at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility study lays the groundwork for continued development of the CRCS-PHR to increase CRC surveillance. Patient-centered technologies, such as the CRCS-PHR, represent an important potential approach to improving the receipt of guideline-concordant care and follow-up surveillance, and not just for CRC survivors. Researchers should continue to develop patient-centered health technologies with clinician implementation in mind to increase patient self-efficacy and surveillance adherence.

How Do We Define and Measure Optimal Care for Cancer Survivors? An Online Modified Reactive Delphi Study

This research sought to answer the question 'what quality criteria do survivorship experts consider to be important in achieving optimal cancer survivorship care?'. An online modified reactive Delphi survey consisting of two rounds was completed with experts including consumers, clinicians, researchers, policymakers and quality and accreditation professionals. Survey items were based on international literature and considered three domains: Policy, process and outcome. In round 1 (R1), experts ranked the importance of 68 criteria on a five-point Likert scale. Criteria were retained if scored 4 (important) or 5 (very important) by >75% participants. In round 2 (R2), experts ranked top 10 criteria per domain. Response rates were 79% (70/89) and 84% (76/91), respectively. After R1, six criteria were removed and six were added. From R2, ten items for each domain were retained. These 30 items formed the Quality Framework. A consensus meeting considered priority items from the Quality Framework and feasibility of data collection. Prioritized items included having a policy on survivorship care; the existence of a multidisciplinary survivorship program (policy); appropriate processes to assess survivors' emotional, psychological and physical needs following treatment and stratification to appropriate models of care (process); and collecting patient-reported outcomes, quality of life and survival rates (outcome).