Introduction: Cancer survivors face physical, lifestyle, psychological, and psychosocial challenges. Despite the availability of aftercare services, survivors still have unmet needs. Digital aftercare programs may offer support, but their use is limited. This study aimed to examine what is needed to improve uptake and adoption of these programs. Additionally, it explored sociodemographic and clinical variables that may influence these needs. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used, involving qualitative interviews and a questionnaire. The research was guided by the COM-B model of behaviour, which considers capability, opportunity, and motivation crucial for behaviour. Qualitative analysis was performed using the framework method. Statistical analyses involved descriptive statistics and regression analysis. Results: Fourteen cancer survivors were interviewed, and 213 participants completed the questionnaire. Findings indicated that most respondents had a positive or neutral attitude towards digital aftercare programs, believing these could address their cancer-related challenges. Still, only a small percentage had experience with them, and most were unaware of their existence. Many expressed a desire to be informed about them. Some were uncertain about their effectiveness. Others were concerned about a lack of reimbursement. No significant influence of the sociodemographic and clinical variables was found. Conclusion: Cancer survivors are generally positive about digital aftercare programs but are often unaware of their availability. Raising awareness, clarifying their value, and providing support and reimbursement could enhance uptake and adoption. Implications for Cancer Survivors: The current insights can help improve participation in digital aftercare programs, ultimately fostering health, well-being, and quality of life of cancer survivors.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: General Practitioners (GPs) play a key role in the healthcare trajectory of patients. If the patient experiences problems that are typically non-life-threatening, such as the symptoms of post-intensive-care syndrome, the GP will be the first healthcare professional they consult. The primary aim of this study is to gain insight in the frequency of GP consultations during the year before hospital admission and the year after discharge for ICU survivors and a matched control group from the general population. The secondary aim of this study is to gain insight into differences between subgroups of the ICU population with respect to the frequency of GP consultations.METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, combining a national health insurance claims database and a national quality registry for ICUs. Clinical data of patients admitted to an ICU in 2013 were enriched with claims data from the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. Poisson regression was used to assess the differences in frequency of GP consultations between the ICU population and the control group.RESULTS: ICU patients have more consultations with GPs during the year before and after admission than individuals in the control group. In the last four weeks before admission, ICU patients have 3.58 (CI 3.37; 3.80) times more GP consultations than the control group, and during the first four weeks after discharge they have 4.98 (CI 4.74; 5.23) times more GP consultations. In the year after hospital discharge ICU survivors have an increased GP consultation rate compared to the year before their hospital admission.CONCLUSIONS: Close to hospital admission and shortly after hospital discharge, the frequency of GP consultations substantially increases in the population of ICU survivors. Even a year after hospital discharge, ICU survivors have increased GP consultation rates. Therefore, GPs should be well informed about the problems ICU patients suffer after discharge, in order to provide suitable follow-up care.
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVES: To describe the types and prevalence of chronic conditions in an ICU population and a population-based control group during the year before ICU admission and to quantify the risk of developing new chronic conditions in ICU patients compared with the control group.DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, combining a national health insurance claims database and a national quality registry for ICUs. Claims data in the timeframe 2012-2014 were combined with clinical data of patients who had been admitted to an ICU during 2013. To assess the differences in risk of developing new chronic conditions, ICU patients were compared with a population-based control group using logistic regression modeling.SETTING: Eighty-one Dutch ICUs.PATIENTS: All patients admitted to an ICU during 2013. A population-based control group was created, and weighted on the age, gender, and socio-economic status of the ICU population.INTERVENTIONS: None.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ICU patients (n = 56,760) have more chronic conditions compared with the control group (n = 75,232) during the year before ICU admission (p < 0.0001). After case-mix adjustment ICU patients had a higher risk of developing chronic conditions, with odds ratios ranging from 1.67 (CI, 1.29-2.17) for asthma to 24.35 (CI, 14.00-42.34) for epilepsy, compared with the control group.CONCLUSIONS: Due to the high prevalence of chronic conditions and the increased risk of developing new chronic conditions, ICU follow-up care is advised and may focus on the identification and treatment of the new developed chronic conditions.
DOCUMENT