• Login
• Admin

Batehup, Lynn, Porter, K., Gage, H., Williams, P., Simmonds, P., Lowson, E., Dodson, L., Davies, N.J., Wagland, Richard, Winter, J.R., Richardson, A., Turner, A. and Corner, Jessica (2017) Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months. Supportive Care in Cancer, 25 (7). pp. 2063-2073. ISSN 1433-7339

Preview	PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Available under Licence Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (443kB) | Preview
	PDF - Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (251kB)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare patient-triggered follow-up (PTFU) for curatively treated colorectal cancer against traditional outpatient follow-up (OPFU).

Methods: Questionnaires were mailed at four time points over one-year post-treatment to two prospectively-recruited cohorts: A, patients entering follow-up and receiving OPFU pre-implementation of PTFU; B, patients entering follow-up (FU) and receiving either OPFU (B1) or PTFU (B2) post-implementation of PTFU. Bi-variate tests were used to compare patient characteristics and outcomes eight months after entering follow-up (generic and cancer-specific quality of life (QoL), satisfaction). Regression analysis explored associations between follow-up model and outcomes. Resource implications and costs of models were compared.

Results: Patients in Cohort B1 were significantly more likely to have received chemotherapy (p<0.001), radiotherapy (p<0.05), and reported poorer QoL (p=0.001). Having a longstanding co-morbid condition was the most important determinant of QoL (p<0.001); model of care was not significant. Patients were satisfied with their follow-up care regardless of model. Health service costs were higher in PTFU over the first year.

Conclusions: PTFU is acceptable to patients with colorectal cancer and can be considered to be a realistic alternative to OPFU for clinically suitable patients. The initial costs are higher due to provision of a self-management (SM) programme and remote surveillance. Further research is needed to establish long-term outcomes and costs.

Item Type:	Article
Keywords:	colorectal cancer; aftercare; follow-up; patient triggered-follow-up; remote surveillance
Schools/Departments:	University of Nottingham, UK > Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > School of Health Sciences
Identification Number:	https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3595-x
Depositing User:	Eprints, Support
Date Deposited:	08 Feb 2017 13:54
Last Modified:	08 May 2020 09:45
URI:	https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/id/eprint/40429

Actions (Archive Staff Only)

Edit View