scholarly journals Are patient-reported outcomes useful in post-treatment follow-up care for women with early breast cancer? A scoping review

2019 ◽  
Vol Volume 10 ◽  
pp. 117-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathrine Lundgaard Riis ◽  
Troels Bechmann ◽  
Pernille Tine Jensen ◽  
Angela Coulter ◽  
Karina Dahl Steffensen
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Early Breast Cancer ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Follow Up Care

scholarly journals ePRO-based individual follow-up care for women treated for early breast cancer: impact on service use and workflows

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathrine Lundgaard Riis ◽  
Mette Stie ◽  
Troels Bechmann ◽  
Pernille Tine Jensen ◽  
Angela Coulter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Early Breast Cancer ◽  
Service Use ◽  
Follow Up Care

Moving from a ‘One Size Fits All’ to Personalized Follow-Up in Breast Cancer Survivors—Connecting Patient-Reported Outcomes with Economic Considerations

2019 ◽  
pp. 307-316
Author(s):  
Carmen Dirksen ◽  
Merel Kimman ◽  
Manuela Joore ◽  
Liesbeth Boersma
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Process Of Care ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Economic Considerations

Abstract: In the Netherlands, two studies were performed to investigate the effectiveness of several alternative follow-up strategies in terms of patient-reported outcomes (health-related quality of life and satisfaction), and to address economic considerations in breast cancer follow-up care. This chapter describes the economic evaluation of four follow-up strategies after breast cancer treatment. As such, it provides an example of the application of economic methods to evaluate the relative value of breast cancer care. Whereas economic evaluation is outcome-focused, the process of care delivery is also a major determinant of patient value. Insight into patients’ preferences for outcome and process is crucial in order to tailor care to individual patients’ needs. Therefore, in a second study, patients’ preferences for the process of care delivery were evaluated.

scholarly journals Opportunities for personalised follow‐up care among patients with breast cancer: A scoping review to identify preference‐sensitive decisions

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly M. de Ligt ◽  
Laurentine S.E. van Egdom ◽  
Linetta B. Koppert ◽  
Sabine Siesling ◽  
Janine A. van Til
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Follow Up Care

Next steps: Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into palliative care referral for people with advanced breast cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 133-133
Author(s):  
Yun Rose Li ◽  
Celine Denise Marquez ◽  
Hope S. Rugo ◽  
Michael W. Rabow ◽  
Laura Esserman
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Metastatic Cancer ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Patient Reported

133 Background: Specialty palliative care (SPC) has been shown to improve quality of life, reduce unnecessary health care utilization, reduce overall costs, and decrease mortality in some settings for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, however only a small proportion are being promptly referred. As interventions that respond to patient reported outcomes (PROs) have been shown to improve symptoms and decrease mortality, we hypothesized that the rates of SPC referral would be increased by documenting, tracking, and presenting PROs for oncology visits to referring oncologists. Methods: Over a period of 2 months, 74 English-speaking established patients seen in an advanced breast cancer clinic with an embedded SPC service were approached and completed the study. All patients filled out the electronic, validated PROMIS and PRO-CTCAE PRO questionnaires in the waiting room using a touch screen tablet. Results were presented to the oncologist during the encounter if the CTCAE severity score exceeded 3 in at least 1 domain. Patient demographics, clinical features and PC referrals or appointments were assessed via chart review. Results: At baseline, 9 (12.2%) patients scored a minimum of “severe” (4/5 or 5/5) in at least 1 of the 3 anxiety domains; 17 (23.0%) had moderate-severe pain; and 27 (32.1%) reported fatigue. At study entry, 25 patients (33.8%) had been referred previously to the SPC service; 19 had actually been seen (76% of referred). Of the 63 (85.1%) patients with sufficient follow-up, 13 (20.6%) reported at least “severe” in >1 CTCAE domains, 6 (46.2%) of whom were previously referred to SPC. For the remaining 7 patients, median PROMIS T-score and PRO-CTCAE maximum severity score were 58.3 and 3.2, respectively; none were referred to SPC during the follow up period. Conclusions: The choice to refer (or not to refer) a patient to SPC is complex and tied to patient specific factors such as coordinating additional visits and fear of end of life conversations. To enable greater access to SPC, alternative referral mechanisms, such as group-based or personalized patient education, or automatic referrals triggered by evidence of need, may be required. #YRL/CDM contributed equally.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document