Patient satisfaction with nurse-led telephone follow-up after curative treatment for breast cancer

BMC Cancer

Volumn 10, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Kimman, Merel L ^a,b   Bloebaum, Monique M F ^a   Dirksen, Carmen D ^c   Houben, Ruud M A ^a   Lambin, Philippe ^a,b   Boersma, Liesbeth J ^a,b  

^a MAASTRO CLINIC   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HUMAN; INFORMATION SERVICE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NURSE PATIENT RELATIONSHIP; NURSE PRACTITIONER; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCORING SYSTEM; TREATMENT OUTCOME; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER CENTER; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; INTERVIEW; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; NETHERLANDS; NURSING; ONCOLOGY NURSING; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; TELEPHONE; TIME;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; NURSE-PATIENT RELATIONS; ONCOLOGIC NURSING; ONCOLOGY SERVICE, HOSPITAL; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES; TELEPHONE; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77951568681     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712407     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-174     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Pestalozzi B, Castiglione M. Primary breast cancer: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2008, 19(Suppl 2):ii7-10. 10.1093/annonc/mdn071, 18456775.
2. Struikmans H, Nortier JW, Rutgers EJ, Zonderland HM, Bontenbal M, Elkhuizen PH, van Tienhoven G, Tjan-Heijnen VC, van Vegchel T, Tuut MK, et al. [Guideline 'Treatment of breast cancer 2008' (revision)]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2008, 152(46):2507-2511.
3. Brada M. Is there a need to follow-up cancer patients?. Eur J Cancer 1995, 31A(5):655-657. 10.1016/0959-8049(95)00079-X, 7640033.
4. Dewar J. Follow up in breast cancer. BMJ 1995, 310(6981):685-686. 2549092, 7711530.
5. Wheeler T, Stenning S, Negus S, Picken S, Metcalfe S. Evidence to support a change in follow-up policy for patients with breast cancer: time to first relapse and hazard rate analysis. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 1999, 11(3):169-173.
6. te Boekhorst DS, Peer NG, Sluis RF, Wobbes T, Ruers TJ. Periodic follow-up after breast cancer and the effect on survival. Eur J Surg 2001, 167(7):490-496. 10.1080/110241501316914849, 11560382.
7. Rosselli Del Turco M, Palli D, Cariddi A, Ciatto S, Pacini P, Distante V. Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. A randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up. JAMA 1994, 271(20):1593-1597. 10.1001/jama.271.20.1593, 7848404.
8. Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. A multicenter randomized controlled trial. The GIVIO Investigators. JAMA 1994, 271(20):1587-1592. 10.1001/jama.271.20.1587, 8182811.
9. Montgomery DA, Krupa K, Cooke TG. Follow-up in breast cancer: does routine clinical examination improve outcome? A systematic review of the literature. Br J Cancer 2007, 97(12):1632-1641. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604065, 2360278, 18000508.
10. Allen A. The meaning of the breast cancer follow-up experience for the women who attend. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2002, 6(3):155-161. 10.1054/ejon.2002.0175, 12849590.
11. Pennery E, Mallet J. A preliminary study of patients' perceptions of routine follow-up after treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2000, 4(3):138-145. discussion 146-137., 10.1054/ejon.2000.0092, 12849643.
12. Gezondheidsraad. Nacontrole in de oncologie. Doelen onderscheiden, inhoud onderbouwen. 2007, Den Haag.
13. Houlihan NG. Transitioning to cancer survivorship: plans of care. Oncology (Williston Park) 2009, 23(8 Suppl):42-48.
14. Beaver K, Tysver-Robinson D, Campbell M, Twomey M, Williamson S, Hindley A, Susnerwala S, Dunn G, Luker K. Comparing hospital and telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: randomised equivalence trial. BMJ 2009, 338:a3147. 10.1136/bmj.a3147, 2628299, 19147478.
15. Koinberg IL, Fridlund B, Engholm GB, Holmberg L. Nurse-led follow-up on demand or by a physician after breast cancer surgery: a randomised study. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2004, 8(2):109-117. discussion 118-120., 10.1016/j.ejon.2003.12.005, 15171968.
16. Montgomery DA, Krupa K, Wilson C, Cooke TG. Automated telephone follow-up after breast cancer: an acceptability and feasibility pilot study. Br J Cancer 2008, 99(5):704-710. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604567, 2528154, 18728659.
17. Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Social Science & Medicine 1997, 45(12):1829-1843.
18. Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, Hart J, Kimber A, Storey L, Thomas H. The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health technology assessment 2002, 6(32):1-244.
19. Kizer KW. Patient centred care: essential but probably not sufficient. Quality & Safety in Health Care 2002, 11(2):117-118.
20. Worthington K. Customer satisfaction in the emergency department. Emergency medicine clinics of North America 2004, 22(1):87-102. 10.1016/S0733-8627(03)00121-4, 15062498.
21. Jackson JL, Chamberlin J, Kroenke K. Predictors of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med 2001, 52(4):609-620. 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00164-7, 11206657.
22. Cox K, Wilson E. Follow-up for people with cancer: nurse-led services and telephone interventions. J Adv Nurs 2003, 43(1):51-61. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02672.x, 12801396.
23. Lewis R, Neal RD, Williams NH, France B, Wilkinson C, Hendry M, Russell D, Russell I, Hughes DA, Stuart NSA, et al. Nurse-led vs. conventional physician-led follow-up for patients with cancer: systematic review. Journal of advanced nursing 2009, 65(4):706-723. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04927.x, 19278415.
24. James ND, Guerrero D, Brada M. Who should follow up cancer patients? Nurse specialist based outpatient care and the introduction of a phone clinic system. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 1994, 6(5):283-287.
25. Marcus AC, Garrett KM, Cella D, Wenzel L, Brady MJ, Fairclough D, Pate-Willig M, Barnes D, Powell Emsbo S, Kluhsman BC, et al. Can telephone counseling post-treatment improve psychosocial outcomes among early stage breast cancer survivors?. Psychooncology 2009,
26. Ganz PA, Coscarelli A, Fred C, Kahn B, Polinsky ML, Petersen L. Breast cancer survivors: psychosocial concerns and quality of life. Breast cancer research and treatment 1996, 38(2):183-199. 10.1007/BF01806673, 8861837.
27. Hagedoorn M, Uijl SG, Van Sonderen E, Ranchor AV, Grol BM, Otter R, Krol B, Heuvel W, Sanderman R. Structure and reliability of Ware's Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire III: patients' satisfaction with oncological care in the Netherlands. Med Care 2003, 41(2):254-263. 10.1097/00005650-200302000-00007, 12555053.
28. Ware JE, Snyder MK, Wright WR, Davies AR. Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Evaluation and Program Planning 1983, 6(3-4):247-263. 10.1016/0149-7189(83)90005-8, 10267253.
29. Kimman ML, Voogd AC, Dirksen CD, Falger P, Hupperets P, Keymeulen K, Hebly M, Dehing C, Lambin P, Boersma LJ. Improving the quality and efficiency of follow-up after curative treatment for breast cancer - rationale and study design of the MaCare trial. BMC Cancer 2007, 7(1):1. 10.1186/1471-2407-7-1, 1769389, 17199887.
30. Taves DR. Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1974, 15(5):443-453.
31. Ware JE. Effects of acquiescent response set on patient satisfaction ratings. Med Care 1978, 16(4):327-336. 10.1097/00005650-197804000-00005, 651398.
32. Schafer JL. Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat Methods Med Res 1999, 8(1):3-15. 10.1191/096228099671525676, 10347857.
33. Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, Wood AM, Carpenter JR. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009, 338:b2393. 10.1136/bmj.b2393, 2714692, 19564179.
34. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Jama 2006, 295(10):1152-1160. 10.1001/jama.295.10.1152, 16522836.
35. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. Bmj 1996, 313(7048):36-39. 2351444, 8664772.
36. Sitzia J. How valid and reliable are patient satisfaction data? An analysis of 195 studies. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 1999, 11(4):319-328. 10.1093/intqhc/11.4.319, 10501602.
37. Kiemeney LALM, Lemmers FAMO, Verhoeven RHA, Aben KKH, Honing C, de Nooijer J, Peeters PHM, Visser O, Vlems FA. [The risk of cancer in the Netherlands]. Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde 2008, 152(41):2233-2241.
38. Brown L, Payne S, Royle G. Patient initiated follow up of breast cancer. Psychooncology 2002, 11(4):346-355. 10.1002/pon.576, 12203747.
39. Montgomery DA, Krupa K, Wilson C, Cooke TG. Patients' expectations for follow-up in breast cancer - A preliminary, questionnaire-based study. Breast 2008,
40. de Bock GH, Bonnema J, Zwaan RE, Velde CJ, Kievit J, Stiggelbout AM. Patient's needs and preferences in routine follow-up after treatment for breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2004, 90(6):1144-1150. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601655, 2409648, 15026793.
41. Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L. The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best?. Health economics 2000, 9(3):267-270. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200004)9:3<267::AID-HEC511>3.0.CO;2-H, 10790707.
42. Williams B. Patient satisfaction: a valid concept?. Soc Sci Med 1994, 38(4):509-516. 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90247-X, 8184314.
43. Linder-Pelz S. Social psychological determinants of patient satisfaction: A test of five hypotheses. social science & medicine 1982, 16(5):583-589.