A growing interest in person-centered care from a biopsychosocial perspective has led to increased attention to structural screening. The aim of this study was to develop an easy-to-comprehend screening instrument using single items to identify a broad range of health-related problems in adult burn survivors. This study builds on earlier work regarding content generation. Focus groups and expert meetings with healthcare providers informed content refinement, resulting in the Aftercare Problem List (APL). The instrument consists of 43 items divided into nine health domains: scars, daily life functioning, scars treatment, body perceptions, stigmatization, intimacy, mental health, relationships, financial concerns, and a positive coping domain. The APL also includes a Distress Thermometer and a question inquiring about preference to discuss the results with a healthcare provider. Subsequently, the APL was completed by 102 outpatients. To test face validity, a linear regression analysis showed that problems in three health domains, i.e., scars, mental health, and body perceptions, were significantly related to higher distress. Qualitative results revealed that a minority found the items difficult which led to further adjustment of the wording and the addition of illustrations. In summation, this study subscribes to the validity of using single items to screen for burn-related problems.
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.
The aim of the research reported in this thesis was to gain knowledge about the implementation of evidence‐based practice (EBP) in nursing to find a way to integrate shared decision making (SDM) with EBP in a chronic care environment in nursing, and to develop a strategy for an integrated approach of EBP and SDM in daily nursing practice in the individual aftercare for cancer survivors.
