Purpose: The increasing number of cancer survivors has heightened demands on hospital-based follow-up care resources. To address this, involving general practitioners (GPs) in oncological follow-up is proposed. This study explores secondary care providers’ views on integrating GPs into follow-up care for curatively treated breast and colorectal cancer survivors. Methods: A qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with Dutch medical specialists and nurse practitioners. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis by two independent researchers. Results: Fifteen medical specialists and nine nurse practitioners participated. They identified barriers such as re-referral delays, inexperience to perform structured follow-up, and worries about the lack of oncological knowledge among GPs. Benefits included the GPs’ accessibility and their contextual knowledge. For future organization, they emphasized the need for hospital logistics changes, formal GP training, sufficient case-load, proper staffing, remuneration, and time allocation. They suggested that formal GP involvement should initially be implemented for frail older patients and for prevalent cancer types. Conclusions: The interviewed Dutch secondary care providers generally supported formal involvement of primary care in cancer follow-up. A well-organized shared-care model with defined roles and clear coordination, supported by individual patients, was considered essential. This approach requires logistics adaptation, resources, and training for GPs. Implications for cancer survivors: Integrating oncological follow-up into routine primary care through a shared-care model may lead to personalized, effective, and efficient care for survivors because of their long-term relationships with GPs.
DOCUMENT
Background: Follow‑up of curatively treated primary breast cancer patients consists of surveillance and aftercare and is currently mostly the same for all patients. A more personalized approach, based on patients’ individual risk of recurrence and personal needs and preferences, may reduce patient burden and reduce (healthcare) costs. The NABOR study will examine the (cost‑)effectiveness of personalized surveillance (PSP) and personalized aftercare plans (PAP) on patient‑reported cancer worry, self‑rated and overall quality of life and (cost‑)effectiveness. Methods: A prospective multicenter multiple interrupted time series (MITs) design is being used. In this design, 10 participating hospitals will be observed for a period of eighteen months, while they ‑stepwise‑ will transit from care as usual to PSPs and PAPs. The PSP contains decisions on the surveillance trajectory based on individual risks and needs, assessed with the ‘Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid’ including the INFLUENCE prediction tool. The PAP contains decisions on the aftercare trajectory based on individual needs and preferences and available care resources, which decision‑making is supported by a patient decision aid. Patients are non‑metastasized female primary breast cancer patients (N= 1040) who are curatively treated and start follow‑up care. Patient reported outcomes will be measured at five points in time during two years of follow‑up care (starting about one year after treatment and every six months thereafter). In addition, data on diagnostics and hospital visits from patients’ Electronical Health Records (EHR) will be gathered. Primary outcomes are patient‑reported cancer worry (Cancer Worry Scale) and over‑all quality of life (as assessed with EQ‑VAS score). Secondary outcomes include health care costs and resource use, health‑related quality of life (as measured with EQ5D‑5L/SF‑12/EORTC‑QLQ‑C30), risk perception, shared decision‑making, patient satisfaction, societal participation, and cost‑effectiveness. Next, the uptake and appreciation of personalized plans and patients’ experiences of their decision‑making process will be evaluated. Discussion: This study will contribute to insight in the (cost‑)effectiveness of personalized follow‑up care and contributes to development of uniform evidence‑based guidelines, stimulating sustainable implementation of personalized surveillance and aftercare plans. Trial registration: Study sponsor: ZonMw. Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (2023), ID: NCT05975437.
MULTIFILE
Research on follow-up outcomes of systemic interventions for family members with an intellectual disability is scarce. In this study, short-term and long-term follow-up outcomes of multisystemic therapy for adolescents with antisocial or delinquent behaviour and an intellectual disability (MST-ID) are reported. In addition, the role of parental intellectual disability was examined. Outcomes of 55 families who had received MST-ID were assessed at the end of treatment and at 6-month, 12-month and 18-month follow-up. Parental intellectual disability was used as a predictor of treatment outcomes. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation. Rule-breaking behaviour of adolescents declined during treatment and stabilized until 18 months post-treatment. The presence or absence of parental intellectual disability did not predict treatment outcomes. This study was the first to report long-term outcomes of MST-ID. The intervention achieved similar results in families with and without parents with an intellectual disability.
DOCUMENT
