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
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
Purpose: Breast cancer follow-up (surveillance and aftercare) varies from one-size-fits-all to more personalised approaches. A systematic review was performed to get insight in existing evidence on (cost-)efectiveness of personalised follow-up. Methods: PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane were searched between 01–01-2010 and 10–10-2022 (review registered in PROSPERO:CRD42022375770). The inclusion population comprised nonmetastatic breast cancer patients≥18 years, after completing curative treatment. All intervention-control studies studying personalised surveillance and/or aftercare designed for use during the entire follow-up period were included. All review processes including risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers. Characteristics of included studies were described. Results: Overall, 3708 publications were identifed, 64 full-text publications were read and 16 were included for data extraction. One study evaluated personalised surveillance. Various personalised aftercare interventions and outcomes were studied. Most common elements included in personalised aftercare plans were treatment summaries (75%), follow-up guidelines (56%), lists of available supportive care resources (38%) and PROs (25%). Control conditions mostly comprised usual care. Four out of seven (57%) studies reported improvements in quality of life following personalisation. Six studies (38%) found no personalisation efect, for multiple outcomes assessed (e.g. distress, satisfaction). One (6.3%) study was judged as low, four (25%) as high risk of bias and 11 (68.8%) as with concerns. Conclusion: The included studies varied in interventions, measurement instruments and outcomes, making it impossible to draw conclusions on the efectiveness of personalised follow-up. There is a need for a definition of both personalised surveillance and aftercare, whereafter outcomes can be measured according to uniform standards.
DOCUMENT
