Premium
Opportunities for personalised follow‐up care among patients with breast cancer: A scoping review to identify preference‐sensitive decisions
Author(s) -
de Ligt Kelly M.,
van Egdom Laurentine S.E.,
Koppert Linetta B.,
Siesling Sabine,
van Til Janine A.
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.13092
Subject(s) - medicine , psychosocial , breast cancer , psycinfo , medline , preference , affect (linguistics) , quality of life (healthcare) , family medicine , patient participation , patient satisfaction , cancer , intensive care medicine , nursing , psychiatry , linguistics , philosophy , political science , law , economics , microeconomics
Current follow‐up arrangements for breast cancer do not optimally meet the needs of individual patients. We therefore reviewed the evidence on preferences and patient involvement in decisions about breast cancer follow‐up to explore the potential for personalised care. Methods Studies published between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We then identified decision categories related to content and form of follow‐up. Criteria for preference sensitiveness and patient involvement were compiled and applied to determine the extent to which decisions were sensitive to patient preferences and patients were involved. Results Forty‐one studies were included in the full‐text analysis. Four decision categories were identified: “surveillance for recurrent/secondary breast cancer; consultations for physical and psychosocial effects; recurrence‐risk reduction by anti‐hormonal treatment; and improving quality of life after breast cancer.” There was little evidence that physicians treated decisions about anti‐hormonal treatment, menopausal symptoms, and follow‐up consultations as sensitive to patient preferences. Decisions about breast reconstruction were considered as very sensitive to patient preferences, and patients were usually involved. Conclusion Patients are currently not involved in all decisions that affect them during follow‐up, indicating a need for improvements. Personalised follow‐up care could improve resource allocation and the value of care for patients.