Premium
Routine follow‐up care after curative treatment of head and neck cancer: A survey of patients’ needs and preferences for healthcare services
Author(s) -
Brennan Kelly E.,
Hall Stephen F.,
Yoo John,
Rohland Susan L.,
Theurer Julie,
Peng Yingwei,
FeldmanStewart Deb
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
european journal of cancer care
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.849
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1365-2354
pISSN - 0961-5423
DOI - 10.1111/ecc.12993
Subject(s) - medicine , psychosocial , anxiety , logistic regression , marital status , quality of life (healthcare) , head and neck cancer , multinomial logistic regression , health care , ordered logit , family medicine , disease , cancer , nursing , psychiatry , population , environmental health , machine learning , computer science , economics , economic growth
Abstract Objective The experience of a cancer diagnosis and receiving treatment can have profound impacts on health and subsequently patients may require significant support. Often, these needs are not identified or addressed. Given that less is known about the follow‐up requirements for head and neck cancer patients, this study aimed to describe their follow‐up needs and preferences. Methods In Ontario, Canada from 2012–2014, 175 patients completed a questionnaire at an appointment one year after treatment. To identify associations between characteristics and follow‐up needs, bivariate analyses and ordinal logistic regression models were employed. Results A diversity of follow‐up requirements was found. The most commonly reported follow‐up needs were having imaging tests performed (66%), receiving information on treatment side effects (84%) and prognosis details (95%). Many patients experienced an improvement in their health (79%) but notably, not all. Characteristics such as psychosocial and well‐being measures (functional status, anxiety, fear of recurrence, quality of life), attitudes towards follow‐up (reassurance, communication), demographics (age, sex, marital status), and stage of disease predicted needs and preferences for follow‐up care ( p < 0.05). Conclusion While awaiting top‐level evidence, this work demonstrates the variation in needs and supports the identification of patients with higher follow‐up requirements by screening for well‐being and enquiring about expectations in follow‐up care.