Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 39, No. 28_suppl ( 2021-10-01), p. 242-242
    Abstract: 242 Background: To improve the quality and efficiency of prostate cancer survivorship care, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the safety and effectiveness of specialist- (usual care) versus primary care-based (intervention) prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assessed the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up in a RCT setting. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used through the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We used quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients, general practitioners (GPs) and specialists. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, 569 patients with localized prostate cancer from 12 hospitals were invited to participate in the trial. 18 patients were not eligible, 145 patients declined (of whom most preferred follow-up in the hospital), whereas 21 GPs declined to participate. Finally, 385 patients were randomized to specialist- (n=192) or to primary care-based (n=193) follow-up. In addition, we interviewed 15 patients, 10 GPs and 8 specialists. Participants identified several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, the relationship is more personal, and the hospital can focus on patients undergoing active treatment. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: evidence-based guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be accessible and transparent, quality indicators (i.e. PSA levels) should be collected, and GPs expect compensation (money or extra capacity). Conclusions: If the RCT shows that primary care- is equally effective as specialist-based follow-up, this study could enable the transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care by presenting information on the reach of an RCT and by providing advantages and challenges of primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 604914-X
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Cancers, MDPI AG, Vol. 14, No. 13 ( 2022-06-28), p. 3166-
    Abstract: Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2072-6694
    Language: English
    Publisher: MDPI AG
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2527080-1
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages