Opportunities for personalised follow‐up care among patients with breast cancer: A scoping review to identify preference-sensitive decisions

Kelly M. de Ligt (Corresponding Author), Laurentine S.E. van Egdom, Linetta B. Koppert, Sabine Siesling, Janine A. van Til

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
14 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Introduction: Current follow‐up arrangements for breast cancer do not optimally
meet the needs of individual patients. We therefore reviewed the evidence on preferences and patient involvement in decisions about breast cancer follow‐up to explore the potential for personalised care.
Methods: Studies published between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We then identified decision categories related to content and form of follow‐up. Criteria for preference sensitiveness and patient involvement were compiled and applied to determine the extent to which decisions were sensitive to patient preferences and patients were involved.
Results: Forty‐one studies were included in the full‐text analysis. Four decision
categories were identified: “surveillance for recurrent/secondary breast cancer;
consultations for physical and psychosocial effects; recurrence‐risk reduction by
anti‐hormonal treatment; and improving quality of life after breast cancer.” There
was little evidence that physicians treated decisions about anti‐hormonal treatment, menopausal symptoms, and follow‐up consultations as sensitive to patient preferences. Decisions about breast reconstruction were considered as very sensitive to patient preferences, and patients were usually involved.
Conclusion: Patients are currently not involved in all decisions that affect them during follow‐up, indicating a need for improvements. Personalised follow‐up care could improve resource allocation and the value of care for patients.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere13092
Number of pages17
JournalEuropean journal of cancer care
Volume28
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2019

Fingerprint

Patient Preference
Patient Care
Breast Neoplasms
Patient Participation
Referral and Consultation
Resource Allocation
Mammaplasty
MEDLINE
Quality of Life
Physicians
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • UT-Hybrid-D

Cite this

@article{7e6953fc6f4b4b648021f0efd919799e,
title = "Opportunities for personalised follow‐up care among patients with breast cancer: A scoping review to identify preference-sensitive decisions",
abstract = "Introduction: Current follow‐up arrangements for breast cancer do not optimallymeet the needs of individual patients. We therefore reviewed the evidence on preferences and patient involvement in decisions about breast cancer follow‐up to explore the potential for personalised care.Methods: Studies published between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We then identified decision categories related to content and form of follow‐up. Criteria for preference sensitiveness and patient involvement were compiled and applied to determine the extent to which decisions were sensitive to patient preferences and patients were involved.Results: Forty‐one studies were included in the full‐text analysis. Four decisioncategories were identified: “surveillance for recurrent/secondary breast cancer;consultations for physical and psychosocial effects; recurrence‐risk reduction byanti‐hormonal treatment; and improving quality of life after breast cancer.” Therewas little evidence that physicians treated decisions about anti‐hormonal treatment, menopausal symptoms, and follow‐up consultations as sensitive to patient preferences. Decisions about breast reconstruction were considered as very sensitive to patient preferences, and patients were usually involved.Conclusion: Patients are currently not involved in all decisions that affect them during follow‐up, indicating a need for improvements. Personalised follow‐up care could improve resource allocation and the value of care for patients.",
keywords = "UT-Hybrid-D",
author = "{de Ligt}, {Kelly M.} and {van Egdom}, {Laurentine S.E.} and Koppert, {Linetta B.} and Sabine Siesling and {van Til}, {Janine A.}",
note = "Wiley deal",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/ecc.13092",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
journal = "European journal of cancer care",
issn = "0961-5423",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

Opportunities for personalised follow‐up care among patients with breast cancer : A scoping review to identify preference-sensitive decisions. / de Ligt, Kelly M. (Corresponding Author); van Egdom, Laurentine S.E.; Koppert, Linetta B.; Siesling, Sabine ; van Til, Janine A.

In: European journal of cancer care, Vol. 28, No. 3, e13092, 01.05.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Opportunities for personalised follow‐up care among patients with breast cancer

T2 - A scoping review to identify preference-sensitive decisions

AU - de Ligt, Kelly M.

AU - van Egdom, Laurentine S.E.

AU - Koppert, Linetta B.

AU - Siesling, Sabine

AU - van Til, Janine A.

N1 - Wiley deal

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - Introduction: Current follow‐up arrangements for breast cancer do not optimallymeet the needs of individual patients. We therefore reviewed the evidence on preferences and patient involvement in decisions about breast cancer follow‐up to explore the potential for personalised care.Methods: Studies published between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We then identified decision categories related to content and form of follow‐up. Criteria for preference sensitiveness and patient involvement were compiled and applied to determine the extent to which decisions were sensitive to patient preferences and patients were involved.Results: Forty‐one studies were included in the full‐text analysis. Four decisioncategories were identified: “surveillance for recurrent/secondary breast cancer;consultations for physical and psychosocial effects; recurrence‐risk reduction byanti‐hormonal treatment; and improving quality of life after breast cancer.” Therewas little evidence that physicians treated decisions about anti‐hormonal treatment, menopausal symptoms, and follow‐up consultations as sensitive to patient preferences. Decisions about breast reconstruction were considered as very sensitive to patient preferences, and patients were usually involved.Conclusion: Patients are currently not involved in all decisions that affect them during follow‐up, indicating a need for improvements. Personalised follow‐up care could improve resource allocation and the value of care for patients.

AB - Introduction: Current follow‐up arrangements for breast cancer do not optimallymeet the needs of individual patients. We therefore reviewed the evidence on preferences and patient involvement in decisions about breast cancer follow‐up to explore the potential for personalised care.Methods: Studies published between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We then identified decision categories related to content and form of follow‐up. Criteria for preference sensitiveness and patient involvement were compiled and applied to determine the extent to which decisions were sensitive to patient preferences and patients were involved.Results: Forty‐one studies were included in the full‐text analysis. Four decisioncategories were identified: “surveillance for recurrent/secondary breast cancer;consultations for physical and psychosocial effects; recurrence‐risk reduction byanti‐hormonal treatment; and improving quality of life after breast cancer.” Therewas little evidence that physicians treated decisions about anti‐hormonal treatment, menopausal symptoms, and follow‐up consultations as sensitive to patient preferences. Decisions about breast reconstruction were considered as very sensitive to patient preferences, and patients were usually involved.Conclusion: Patients are currently not involved in all decisions that affect them during follow‐up, indicating a need for improvements. Personalised follow‐up care could improve resource allocation and the value of care for patients.

KW - UT-Hybrid-D

U2 - 10.1111/ecc.13092

DO - 10.1111/ecc.13092

M3 - Review article

VL - 28

JO - European journal of cancer care

JF - European journal of cancer care

SN - 0961-5423

IS - 3

M1 - e13092

ER -