Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months.

Batehup, L, Porter, K, Gage, Heather, Williams, Peter, Simmonds, P, Lowson, E, Dodson, L, Davies, NJ, Wagland, R, Winter, JD et al, Richardson, A, Turner, A and Corner, JL (2017) Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: longitudinal evaluation of patient initiated follow-up in the first 12 months. Supportive Care in Cancer, 25 (7). pp. 2063-2073.

	Text Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer - longitudinal evaluation of PTFU 05042016 docx revisions 14122016.docx - Accepted version Manuscript Available under License : See the attached licence file. Download (70kB)
Preview	Text (licence) SRI_deposit_agreement.pdf Available under License : See the attached licence file. Download (33kB) | Preview

Abstract

Purpose: To compare patient-triggered follow-up (PTFU) for curatively treated colorectal cancer against traditional outpatient follow-up (OPFU). Methods: Questionnaires were mailed at four time points over one-year post-treatment to two prospectively-recruited cohorts: A, patients entering follow-up and receiving OPFU pre-implementation of PTFU; B, patients entering follow-up (FU) and receiving either OPFU (B1) or PTFU (B2) post-implementation of PTFU. Bi-variate tests were used to compare patient characteristics and outcomes eight months after entering follow-up (generic and cancer-specific quality of life (QoL), satisfaction). Regression analysis explored associations between follow-up model and outcomes. Resource implications and costs of models were compared. Results: Patients in Cohort B1 were significantly more likely to have received chemotherapy (p<0.001), radiotherapy (p<0.05), and reported poorer QoL (p=0.001). Having a longstanding co-morbid condition was the most important determinant of QoL (p<0.001); model of care was not significant. Patients were satisfied with their follow-up care regardless of model. Health service costs were higher in PTFU over the first year Conclusions: PTFU is acceptable to patients with colorectal cancer and can be considered to be a realistic alternative to OPFU for clinically suitable patients. The initial costs are higher due to provision of a self-management (SM) programme and remote surveillance. . Further research is needed to establish long-term outcomes and costs.

Item Type:	Article
Subjects :	Economics
Divisions :	Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences > School of Economics
Authors :	Name Email ORCID Batehup, L Porter, K Gage, Heather H.Gage@surrey.ac.uk Williams, Peter P.Williams@surrey.ac.uk Simmonds, P Lowson, E Dodson, L Davies, NJ Wagland, R Winter, JD Richardson, A Turner, A Corner, JL
Date :	14 February 2017
DOI :	10.1007/s00520-017-3595-x
Copyright Disclaimer :	The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3595-x
Uncontrolled Keywords :	colorectal cancer; aftercare; follow-up; patient triggered-follow-up; remote surveillance
Related URLs :	Publisher
Depositing User :	Symplectic Elements
Date Deposited :	01 Mar 2017 12:12
Last Modified :	16 Jan 2019 17:12
URI:	http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/id/eprint/813652

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads