Patient satisfaction with nurse-led telephone follow-up after curative treatment for breast cancer

Merel L Kimman, Monique Mf Bloebaum, Carmen D Dirksen, Ruud Ma Houben, Philippe Lambin, Liesbeth J Boersma, Merel L Kimman, Monique Mf Bloebaum, Carmen D Dirksen, Ruud Ma Houben, Philippe Lambin, Liesbeth J Boersma

Abstract

Background: Current frequent follow-up after treatment for breast cancer does not meet its intended aims, but does depend on expensive and scarce specialized knowledge for routine history taking and physical examinations. The study described in this paper compared patient satisfaction with a reduced follow-up strategy, i.e. nurse-led telephone follow-up, to satisfaction with traditional hospital follow-up.

Methods: Patient satisfaction was assessed among patients (n=299) who were participants of a randomized controlled trial investigating the cost-effectiveness of several follow-up strategies in the first year after treatment for breast cancer. Data on patient satisfaction were collected at baseline, three, six and 12 months after treatment, using the Dutch version of Ware's Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire III (PSQ III). In addition to general satisfaction, the PSQ III reports on satisfaction scores for technical competence, interpersonal aspects, and access of care. Regression analysis was used to predict satisfaction scores from whether or not nurse-led telephone follow-up was received.

Results: Nurse-led telephone follow-up had no statistically significant influence on general patient satisfaction (p=0.379), satisfaction with technical competence (p=0.249), and satisfaction with interpersonal aspects (p=0.662). Regarding access of care, patient satisfaction scores were significantly higher for patients receiving telephone follow-up (p=0.015). However, a mean difference at 12 months of 3.1 points was judged to be not clinically relevant.

Conclusions: No meaningful differences were found in satisfaction scores between nurse-led telephone and hospital follow-up in the first year after breast cancer treatment. With high satisfaction scores and the potential to substantially reduce clinic visits, nurse-led telephone follow-up may be an acceptable alternative to traditional hospital follow-up.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN 74071417.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Average satisfaction scores for hospital follow-up compared to nurse-led telephone follow-up. Figure 1 presents average satisfaction scores for general satisfaction, access of care, technical competences and interpersonal aspects, at baseline, three, six and 12 months after treatment, for hospital follow-up compared to nurse-led telephone follow-up. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

References

    1. Pestalozzi B, Castiglione M. Primary breast cancer: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(Suppl 2):ii7–10. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdn071.
    1. Struikmans H, Nortier JW, Rutgers EJ, Zonderland HM, Bontenbal M, Elkhuizen PH, van Tienhoven G, Tjan-Heijnen VC, van Vegchel T, Tuut MK. [Guideline 'Treatment of breast cancer 2008' (revision)] Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2008;152(46):2507–2511.
    1. Brada M. Is there a need to follow-up cancer patients? Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A(5):655–657. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(95)00079-X.
    1. Dewar J. Follow up in breast cancer. BMJ. 1995;310(6981):685–686.
    1. Wheeler T, Stenning S, Negus S, Picken S, Metcalfe S. Evidence to support a change in follow-up policy for patients with breast cancer: time to first relapse and hazard rate analysis. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 1999;11(3):169–173.
    1. te Boekhorst DS, Peer NG, Sluis RF van der, Wobbes T, Ruers TJ. Periodic follow-up after breast cancer and the effect on survival. Eur J Surg. 2001;167(7):490–496. doi: 10.1080/110241501316914849.
    1. Rosselli Del Turco M, Palli D, Cariddi A, Ciatto S, Pacini P, Distante V. Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. A randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up. JAMA. 1994;271(20):1593–1597. doi: 10.1001/jama.271.20.1593.
    1. Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. A multicenter randomized controlled trial. The GIVIO Investigators. JAMA. 1994;271(20):1587–1592. doi: 10.1001/jama.271.20.1587.
    1. Montgomery DA, Krupa K, Cooke TG. Follow-up in breast cancer: does routine clinical examination improve outcome? A systematic review of the literature. Br J Cancer. 2007;97(12):1632–1641. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604065.
    1. Allen A. The meaning of the breast cancer follow-up experience for the women who attend. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2002;6(3):155–161. doi: 10.1054/ejon.2002.0175.
    1. Pennery E, Mallet J. A preliminary study of patients' perceptions of routine follow-up after treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2000;4(3):138–145. doi: 10.1054/ejon.2000.0092. discussion 146-137.
    1. Gezondheidsraad. Nacontrole in de oncologie. Doelen onderscheiden, inhoud onderbouwen. Den Haag; 2007.
    1. Houlihan NG. Transitioning to cancer survivorship: plans of care. Oncology (Williston Park) 2009;23(8 Suppl):42–48.
    1. Beaver K, Tysver-Robinson D, Campbell M, Twomey M, Williamson S, Hindley A, Susnerwala S, Dunn G, Luker K. Comparing hospital and telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: randomised equivalence trial. BMJ. 2009;338:a3147. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a3147.
    1. Koinberg IL, Fridlund B, Engholm GB, Holmberg L. Nurse-led follow-up on demand or by a physician after breast cancer surgery: a randomised study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2004;8(2):109–117. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2003.12.005. discussion 118-120.
    1. Montgomery DA, Krupa K, Wilson C, Cooke TG. Automated telephone follow-up after breast cancer: an acceptability and feasibility pilot study. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(5):704–710. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604567.
    1. Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Social Science & Medicine. 1997;45(12):1829–1843.
    1. Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, Hart J, Kimber A, Storey L, Thomas H. The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health technology assessment. 2002;6(32):1–244.
    1. Kizer KW. Patient centred care: essential but probably not sufficient. Quality & Safety in Health Care. 2002;11(2):117–118.
    1. Worthington K. Customer satisfaction in the emergency department. Emergency medicine clinics of North America. 2004;22(1):87–102. doi: 10.1016/S0733-8627(03)00121-4.
    1. Jackson JL, Chamberlin J, Kroenke K. Predictors of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(4):609–620. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00164-7.
    1. Cox K, Wilson E. Follow-up for people with cancer: nurse-led services and telephone interventions. J Adv Nurs. 2003;43(1):51–61. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02672.x.
    1. Lewis R, Neal RD, Williams NH, France B, Wilkinson C, Hendry M, Russell D, Russell I, Hughes DA, Stuart NSA. Nurse-led vs. conventional physician-led follow-up for patients with cancer: systematic review. Journal of advanced nursing. 2009;65(4):706–723. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04927.x.
    1. James ND, Guerrero D, Brada M. Who should follow up cancer patients? Nurse specialist based outpatient care and the introduction of a phone clinic system. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 1994;6(5):283–287.
    1. Marcus AC, Garrett KM, Cella D, Wenzel L, Brady MJ, Fairclough D, Pate-Willig M, Barnes D, Powell Emsbo S, Kluhsman BC. Can telephone counseling post-treatment improve psychosocial outcomes among early stage breast cancer survivors? Psychooncology. 2009.
    1. Ganz PA, Coscarelli A, Fred C, Kahn B, Polinsky ML, Petersen L. Breast cancer survivors: psychosocial concerns and quality of life. Breast cancer research and treatment. 1996;38(2):183–199. doi: 10.1007/BF01806673.
    1. Hagedoorn M, Uijl SG, Van Sonderen E, Ranchor AV, Grol BM, Otter R, Krol B, Heuvel W Van den, Sanderman R. Structure and reliability of Ware's Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire III: patients' satisfaction with oncological care in the Netherlands. Med Care. 2003;41(2):254–263. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200302000-00007.
    1. Ware JE, Snyder MK, Wright WR, Davies AR. Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Evaluation and Program Planning. 1983;6(3-4):247–263. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(83)90005-8.
    1. Kimman ML, Voogd AC, Dirksen CD, Falger P, Hupperets P, Keymeulen K, Hebly M, Dehing C, Lambin P, Boersma LJ. Improving the quality and efficiency of follow-up after curative treatment for breast cancer - rationale and study design of the MaCare trial. BMC Cancer. 2007;7(1):1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-7-1.
    1. Taves DR. Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1974;15(5):443–453.
    1. Ware JE Jr. Effects of acquiescent response set on patient satisfaction ratings. Med Care. 1978;16(4):327–336. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197804000-00005.
    1. Schafer JL. Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(1):3–15. doi: 10.1191/096228099671525676.
    1. Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, Wood AM, Carpenter JR. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:b2393. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2393.
    1. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Jama. 2006;295(10):1152–1160. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.10.1152.
    1. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. Bmj. 1996;313(7048):36–39.
    1. Sitzia J. How valid and reliable are patient satisfaction data? An analysis of 195 studies. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 1999;11(4):319–328. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/11.4.319.
    1. Kiemeney LALM, Lemmers FAMO, Verhoeven RHA, Aben KKH, Honing C, de Nooijer J, Peeters PHM, Visser O, Vlems FA. [The risk of cancer in the Netherlands] Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde. 2008;152(41):2233–2241.
    1. Brown L, Payne S, Royle G. Patient initiated follow up of breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2002;11(4):346–355. doi: 10.1002/pon.576.
    1. Montgomery DA, Krupa K, Wilson C, Cooke TG. Patients' expectations for follow-up in breast cancer - A preliminary, questionnaire-based study. Breast. 2008.
    1. de Bock GH, Bonnema J, Zwaan RE, Velde CJ van de, Kievit J, Stiggelbout AM. Patient's needs and preferences in routine follow-up after treatment for breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004;90(6):1144–1150. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601655.
    1. Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L. The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? Health economics. 2000;9(3):267–270. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200004)9:3<267::AID-HEC511>;2-H.
    1. Williams B. Patient satisfaction: a valid concept? Soc Sci Med. 1994;38(4):509–516. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90247-X.
    1. Linder-Pelz S. Social psychological determinants of patient satisfaction: A test of five hypotheses. social science & medicine. 1982;16(5):583–589.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다