Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLydon, Aen
dc.contributor.authorBeaver, Ken
dc.contributor.authorNewbery, Carolen
dc.contributor.authorWray, Jen
dc.date.accessioned2010-08-09T16:07:27Z
dc.date.available2010-08-09T16:07:27Z
dc.date.issued2009-12
dc.identifier.citationRoutine follow-up after treatment for ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom (UK): patient and health professional views. 2009, 13 (5):336-43 Eur J Oncol Nursen
dc.identifier.issn1532-2122
dc.identifier.pmid19535294
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ejon.2009.04.007
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/109345
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore patients and health professional's perceptions of follow-up service provision following treatment for ovarian cancer. In the United Kingdom, where this study took place, ovarian cancer is the most common gynaecological cancer in women. The causes are unknown, symptoms are often vague and most cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage. There is a high likelihood of disease progression and little evidence on the benefits of routine follow-up after treatment for gynaecological cancer. METHOD: Two focus groups were conducted with patients (n=6) and health professionals (n=7) at a hospital in North-West England. RESULTS: From the patient group, three main themes emerged: reassurance, the need for support and information, and alternative approaches to follow-up care. Three main themes emerged from the health professional group: patient attendance at outpatient clinics to monitor for disease progression; the need to modernise the current system; and patients should be encouraged to self-manage their disease. CONCLUSIONS: There were similarities and differences in perceptions of follow-up care procedures between the two focus groups. Patients placed importance on clinical examination in indicating disease recurrence, whereas health professionals viewed this as historical practice with no evidence base. Accurate information on how disease progression is monitored should be communicated to patients. A modified approach to follow-up procedures is suggested as a useful strategy to tailor services to individual needs and preferences, whilst responding to service demands.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectOvarian Canceren
dc.subject.meshAftercare
dc.subject.meshAged
dc.subject.meshAttitude of Health Personnel
dc.subject.meshContinuity of Patient Care
dc.subject.meshFemale
dc.subject.meshFocus Groups
dc.subject.meshGreat Britain
dc.subject.meshHealth Services Accessibility
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshMiddle Aged
dc.subject.meshOvarian Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshPatient Satisfaction
dc.subject.meshQuality of Health Care
dc.subject.meshRecurrence
dc.subject.meshSocial Support
dc.titleRoutine follow-up after treatment for ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom (UK): patient and health professional views.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentMacmillan Research Unit, School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK. Anne.Lydon@manchester.ac.uken
dc.identifier.journalEuropean Journal of Oncology Nursingen
html.description.abstractPURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore patients and health professional's perceptions of follow-up service provision following treatment for ovarian cancer. In the United Kingdom, where this study took place, ovarian cancer is the most common gynaecological cancer in women. The causes are unknown, symptoms are often vague and most cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage. There is a high likelihood of disease progression and little evidence on the benefits of routine follow-up after treatment for gynaecological cancer. METHOD: Two focus groups were conducted with patients (n=6) and health professionals (n=7) at a hospital in North-West England. RESULTS: From the patient group, three main themes emerged: reassurance, the need for support and information, and alternative approaches to follow-up care. Three main themes emerged from the health professional group: patient attendance at outpatient clinics to monitor for disease progression; the need to modernise the current system; and patients should be encouraged to self-manage their disease. CONCLUSIONS: There were similarities and differences in perceptions of follow-up care procedures between the two focus groups. Patients placed importance on clinical examination in indicating disease recurrence, whereas health professionals viewed this as historical practice with no evidence base. Accurate information on how disease progression is monitored should be communicated to patients. A modified approach to follow-up procedures is suggested as a useful strategy to tailor services to individual needs and preferences, whilst responding to service demands.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record