A randomised controlled trial to improve the role of the general practitioner in cancer rehabilitation: effect on patients' satisfaction with their general practitioners

Stinne Holm Bergholdt, Dorte Gilså Hansen, Pia Veldt Larsen, Jakob Kragstrup, Jens Søndergaard, Stinne Holm Bergholdt, Dorte Gilså Hansen, Pia Veldt Larsen, Jakob Kragstrup, Jens Søndergaard

Abstract

Objective: To test whether a complex intervention facilitating early cancer rehabilitation by involvement of the general practitioner (GP) soon after diagnosis improves patients' satisfaction with their GPs.

Design: A cluster randomised controlled trial. All general practices in Denmark were randomised to an intervention or a control group before the start of the study. Patients included those with cancer who were subsequently allocated to either group based on the randomisation status of their GP.

Participants: Adult patients with cancer treated for incident cancer at the public regional hospital (Vejle Hospital, Denmark) were included between May 2008 and February 2009. A total of 955 patients registered with 323 practices were included, of which 486 patients were allocated to the intervention group and 469 to the control group.

Intervention: The intervention included a patient interview assessing the need for rehabilitation, improved information from the hospital to GPs including information on the patients' current needs along with information about needs of patients with cancer in general. Further, GPs were encouraged to proactively contact the patients and facilitate the patients' rehabilitation course.

Outcome measures: 6 months after inclusion of the patient, patient satisfaction with their GP during the last 12 months in five different dimensions of GP care was assessed using the Danish version of the EuroPEP (European Patients Evaluate General Practice Care) questionnaire (DanPEP). 14 months after inclusion, patient satisfaction with the GP regarding the cancer course and GP's satisfaction with own contribution to the patients' rehabilitation course were assessed using ad hoc questions specifically designed for this study.

Results: No overall effect of the intervention was observed. Subgroup analysis of the patients with breast cancer showed statistically significant improvement of satisfaction with the GP in two of the five DanPEP dimensions.

Conclusions: This complex intervention aiming at improving GPs' services in cancer rehabilitation had no impact on patient satisfaction.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, registration ID number NCT01021371.

Keywords: ONCOLOGY; PRIMARY CARE; PUBLIC HEALTH; REHABILITATION MEDICINE.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow.
Figure 2
Figure 2
General needs and problems among cancer patients.

References

    1. Groenvold M, Pedersen C, Jensen CR, et al. The cancer patient's world—an investigation of the problems experienced by Danish cancer patients. Copenhagen: Danish Cancer Society, 2006. [in Danish].
    1. Mikkelsen T, Sondergaard J, Sokolowski I, et al. Cancer survivors’ rehabilitation needs in a primary health care context. Fam Pract 2009;26:221–30
    1. Armes J, Crowe M, Colbourne L, et al. Patients’ supportive care needs beyond the end of cancer treatment: a prospective, longitudinal survey. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:6172–9
    1. Hewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Comittee on Cancer Survivorship. Improving Care and Quality of Life, National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Counsil Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2006
    1. Mikkelsen TH, Sondergaard J, Jensen AB, et al. Cancer rehabilitation: psychosocial rehabilitation needs after discharge from hospital? Scand J Prim Health Care 2008;26:216–21
    1. Schmid-Buchi S, Halfens RJ, Dassen T, et al. Psychosocial problems and needs of posttreatment patients with breast cancer and their relatives. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2011;15:260–6
    1. Steele R, Fitch MI. Supportive care needs of women with gynecologic cancer. Cancer Nurs 2008;31:284–91
    1. Fitch MI, Steele R. Supportive care needs of individuals with lung cancer. Can Oncol Nurs J 2010;20:15–22
    1. Olesen F, Dickinson J, Hjortdahl P. General practice—time for a new definition. BMJ 2000;320:354–7
    1. Grunfeld E, Earle CC. The interface between primary and oncology specialty care: treatment through survivorship. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010;2010:25–30
    1. Kendall M, Boyd K, Campbell C, et al. How do people with cancer wish to be cared for in primary care? Serial discussion groups of patients and carers. Fam Pract 2006;23:644–50
    1. Johansson B, Berglund G, Hoffman K, et al. The role of the general practitioner in cancer care and the effect of an extended information routine. Scand J Prim Health Care 2000;18:143–8
    1. Grunfeld E. Primary care physicians and oncologists are players on the same team. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2246–7
    1. Bulsara C, Ward AM, Joske D. Patient perceptions of the GP role in cancer management. Aust Fam Physician 2005;34:299–300, 302
    1. Hall S, Gray N, Browne S, et al. A qualitative exploration of the role of primary care in supporting colorectal cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2012;20:3071–8
    1. Lundstrom LH, Johnsen AT, Ross L, et al. Cross-sectorial cooperation and supportive care in general practice: cancer patients’ experiences. Fam Pract 2011;28:532–40
    1. Nielsen JD, Palshof T, Mainz J, et al. Randomised controlled trial of a shared care programme for newly referred cancer patients: bridging the gap between general practice and hospital. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:263–72
    1. Brazil K, Sussman J, Bainbridge D, et al. Who is responsible? The role of family physicians in the provision of supportive cancer care. J Oncol Pract 2010;6:19–24
    1. Miedema B, MacDonald I, Tatemichi S. Cancer follow-up care. Patients’ perspectives . Can Fam Physician 2003;49:890–5
    1. Sisler JJ, Brown JB, Stewart M. Family physicians’ roles in cancer care. Survey of patients on a provincial cancer registry. Can Fam Physician 2004;50:889–96
    1. Anvik T, Holtedahl KA, Mikalsen H. When patients have cancer, they stop seeing me—the role of the general practitioner in early follow-up of patients with cancer—a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract 2006;7:19.
    1. Bergholdt SH, Larsen PV, Kragstrup J, et al. Enhanced involvement of general practitioners in cancer rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ open 2012;2:e000764
    1. Bergholdt SH, Søndergaard J, Larsen PV, et al. A randomised controlled trial to improve general practitioners’ services in cancer rehabilitation: effects on general practitioners’ proactivity and on patients’ participation in rehabilitation activities. Acta Oncol 2013;52:400–9
    1. Hansen DG, Bergholdt SH, Holm L, et al. A complex intervention to enhance the involvement of general practitioners in cancer rehabilitation. Protocol for a randomised controlled trial and feasibility study of a multimodal intervention. Acta Oncol 2011; 50:299–306
    1. Pedersen KM, Andersen JS, Sondergaard J. General practice and primary health care in Denmark. J Am Board Fam Med 2012;25:S34–8
    1. PLO Praksistælling General Practitioners’ Organisation Practice Count i. Copenhagen: PLO (General Practitioners’ Organisation), 2009.. [in Danish].
    1. Kurtz SM, Silverman JD. The Calgary-Cambridge Referenced Observation Guides: an aid to defining the curriculum and organizing the teaching in communication training programmes. Med Educ 1996;30:83–9
    1. McDowell ME, Occhipinti S, Ferguson M, et al. Predictors of change in unmet supportive care needs in cancer. Psychooncology 2010;19:508–16
    1. Grol R, Wensing M, Mainz J, et al. Patients in Europe evaluate general practice care: an international comparison. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50:882–7
    1. Vedsted P, Sokolowski I, Heje HN. Data quality and confirmatory factor analysis of the Danish EUROPEP questionnaire on patient evaluation of general practice. Scand J Prim Health Care 2008;26:174–80
    1. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:365–76
    1. Heje HN, Vedsted P, Sokolowski I, et al. Patient characteristics associated with differences in patients’ evaluation of their general practitioner. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8:178.
    1. Petek D, Kunzi B, Kersnik J, et al. Patients’ evaluations of European general practice—-revisited after 11 years. Int J Qual Health C 2011;23:621–8
    1. Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, et al. NORDCAN: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 5.3 (25.04.2013). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society; (accessed 11/05/2013)
    1. Lazar EJ, Fleischut P, Regan BK. Quality measurement in healthcare. Annu Rev Med 2013;64:485–96
    1. Heje HN, Gut R, Vedsted P. Patientevaluering af sundhedsvaesenet. [Patient evaluation of health care] Ugeskr Laeger 2009;171:1666–70 [in Danish].
    1. Heje HN, Olesen F, Vedsted P. Patienternes vurdering af de praktiserende laeger. Overordnede resultater fra DanPEP-projektet—-del I. [Patients’ assessment of their general practitioners—-the significance of patient characteristics. General results from the DanPEP—-part I]. Ugeskr Laeger 2010;172:1105–12 [in Danish].

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다