Cancer patients’ and clinicians’ opinions on the best time in secondary care to approach patients for recruitment to longitudinal questionnaire-based research
- 278 Downloads
A priority of the UK National Cancer Survivorship Initiative is to increase collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) longitudinally post-diagnosis. This study aimed to gather cancer patients’ and clinicians’ opinions and preferences about the best time, in the secondary care pathway, to approach patients about joining longitudinal observational PROMs-based (LO-PROMs) research.
The sample comprised 15 patients with non-metastatic breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, and 15 clinicians including surgeons, oncologists and nurse specialists. Patients and clinicians participated in one face-to-face topic-guided audio-recorded interview. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis.
Patients did not want to be approached about LO-PROMs research early in the care pathway, near diagnosis and treatment planning or before any surgery and its results. Patients felt that LO-PROMs research is best introduced from the time people are ‘settled’ on (post-surgical) treatment regimens, provided they are coping well emotionally and not experiencing significant physical side effects; patients emphasised variability in people’s experience of and response to cancer and treatment. Clinicians also advised against approach near diagnosis, although generally recommended initiating recruitment somewhat sooner than patients.
Patients expressed strong homogeneous preferences and ideally wanted to be approached about LO-PROMs research when their initial fears and anxiety about cancer treatment and survival had diminished, and they felt some sense of certainty and optimism about the future. As the timeline of clinical events varies, maximising recruitment may mean approaching patients at varied time points post-diagnosis. Further recruitment implications are discussed.
KeywordsCancer Patients’ views Clinicians’ views Research participation Recruitment Questionnaires
We thank the patients and clinicians who gave their time to participate in this study and the Robert Ogden Macmillan Centre for providing interview rooms. This study was funded by Macmillan Cancer Support, with additional financial support from Cancer Research UK, and sponsored by the University of Leeds. We also acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research, through the National Cancer Research Network.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 7.National Cancer Survivorship Initiative Vision document. Available at http://www.ncsi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/NCSI-Vision-Document.pdf. Accessed 28 November 2011
- 18.Hetherton J, Matheson A, Robson M (2004) Recruitment by GPs during consultations in a primary care randomized controlled trial comparing computerized psychological therapy with clinical psychology and routine GP care: problems and possible solutions. Prim Health Care Res Dev 5:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Ashley L, Jones H, Forman D et al (2011) Feasibility test of a UK-scalable electronic system for regular collection of patient-reported outcome measures and linkage with clinical cancer registry data: the electronic patient-reported outcomes from cancer survivors (ePOCS) system. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 11:66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN, Rook DW (2007) Focus groups: theory and practice, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 22.Krueger RA (1994) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 29.Travaglia JF, Nugus PI, Greenfield D, Westbrook JI, Braithwaite J (in press) Visualising differences in professionals' perspectives on quality and safety. BMJ Qual SafGoogle Scholar
- 31.Ziebland S, Featherstone K, Snowdon C, Barker K, Frost H, Fairbank J (2007) Does it matter if clinicians recruiting for a trial don't understand what the trial is really about? Qualitative study of surgeons' experiences of participation in a pragmatic multi-centre RCT. Trials 8:4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar