Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 2007–2015 | Cite as

Thyroid cancer survivors’ perceptions of survivorship care follow-up options: a cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey

  • Jacqueline L. BenderEmail author
  • David Wiljer
  • Anna M. Sawka
  • Richard Tsang
  • Nour Alkazaz
  • James D. Brierley
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

This study investigated thyroid cancer (TC) survivors’ perceived satisfaction with and perceptions of survivorship care follow-up options.

Methods

Well-differentiated TC (WDTC) patients receiving follow-up care at an academic cancer centre completed a questionnaire assessing perceived satisfaction with follow-up care involving different clinicians and mediated by the Internet (email or videoconference) and their perceptions of these follow-up options. We examined associations between patient characteristics and perceived satisfaction with follow-up care options. Qualitative responses were analysed using conventional content analysis.

Results

Two hundred and two respondents completed the questionnaire (80 % response rate). The majority strongly agreed or agreed that they would be satisfied with specialist (surgeon, oncologist, or endocrinologist) follow-up (90.6 %) or a shared-care model that integrates specialists with primary care (67.5 %). One third (32 %) would be satisfied with video-based and 26 % with email-based specialist follow-up, 15 % with primary care alone. Longer time since diagnosis and health-related Internet use were associated with higher perceived satisfaction with Internet-based follow-up. Younger age was associated with higher perceived satisfaction with primary care follow-up. Qualitative responses (n = 145) revealed that survivors need reassurance they are receiving adequate care, regardless of the model or medium. Enablers to primary care and Internet-based follow-up are discussed.

Conclusions

WDTC survivors want specialists involved in their follow-up. A specialist/primary care shared-care approach appears to be a suitable alternative to specialist-led follow-up for TC survivors. Internet-based visits could address some aspects of follow-up care for some WDTC survivors. Future work should examine patient and provider requirements for shared, multi-modal survivorship care.

Keywords

Thyroid cancer Survivorship Follow-up Technology Internet 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Angel Duggan, Barbara Athil, Darlene Dale, and the PM Cancer Registry are acknowledged.

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was approved by the institution’s Research Ethics Board.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent to participate

All study respondents gave signed informed consent.

References

  1. 1.
    Canadian Cancer Society (2014) Canadian Cancer Statistics 2014, Provincial/Territorial Cancer Registries, Public Health Agency of Canada. 2014. http://www.cancer.ca. Accessed 19 Jan 2015
  2. 2.
    Davies L, Welch HG (2006) Increasing incidence of TC in the United States, 1973–2002. JAMA 295:2164–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cancer Research UK (2008) CancerStats: Cancer Statistics for the UK 2008. 12/2013 update. (2008). http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/thyroid/incidence/. Accessed 19 Jan 2015.
  4. 4.
    Cooper DS, Doherty GM, Haugen BR, Kloos RT, Lee SL, Mandel SJ et al (2009) Revised American Thyroid Association management guidelines for patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated TC. Thyroid 19(11):1167–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E et al (eds) (2005) From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Institute of Medicine. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halpern MT, Viswanathan M, Evans TS, Birken SA, Basch E, Mayer DK (2014) Models of cancer survivorship care: overview and summary of current evidence. J Oncol Pract. Sept 9 [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hebdon M, Abrahamson K, McComb S, Sands L (2014) Transitioning patients to survivorship care: a systematic review. Oncol Nurs Forum 41(6):615–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emery JD, Shaw K, Williams B, Mazza D, Fallon-Ferguson J, Varlow M et al (2014) The role of primary care in early detection and follow-up of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11(1):38–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grunfeld E, Mant D, Yudkin P, Adewuyi-Dalton R, Cole D, Stewart J et al (1996) Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care: randomized trial. BMJ 313:665–9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grunfeld E, Levine MN, Julian JA, Coyle D, Szechtman B, Mirsky D et al (2006) Randomized trial of long-term follow-up for early-stage breast cancer: a comparison of family physician versus specialist care. J Clin Oncol 24(6):848–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grunfeld E, Fitzpatrick R, Mant D, Yudkin P, Adewuyi-Dalton R, Cole D et al (1999) Comparison of breast cancer patient satisfaction with follow-up in primary care versus specialist care: results from a randomized controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract 49:705–10PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewis RA, Neal RD, Hendry M, France B, Willans NH, Russel D et al (2009) Patients’ and healthcare professionals’ views of cancer follow-up: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 59:e248–259CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    PWC (2014) Making care mobile: shifting perspectives on the virtualization of health care. http://www.pwc.com/ca/virtualcare. Accessed 19 Jan 2015.
  15. 15.
    Hickson R, Talbert J, Thornbury WC, Perin NR, Goodin AJ (2015) Online medical care: the current state of “eVisits” in acute primary care delivery. Telemed J E Health 21(2):90–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Statistics Canada (2012) Canadian Internet Use Survey, 2012. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/131126/dq131126d-eng.htm. Accessed Jan 19 2015
  17. 17.
    Dickinson R, Hall S, Sinclair JE, Bond C, Murchie P (2014) Using technology to deliver cancer follow-up: a systematic review. BMC Cancer 14(1):311CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leahy M, Krishnasamy M, Herschtal A, Bressel M, Dryden T, Tai KH et al (2013) Satisfaction with nurse-led telephone follow up for low to intermediate risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical radiotherapy. A comparative study. Eur J Oncol Nurs 17(2):162–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kimman ML, Dirksen CD, Voogd AC, Falger P, Gijsen BCM, Thuring M et al (2011) Nurse-led telephone follow-up and an educational group programme after breast cancer treatment: results of a 2 × 2 randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 47(7):1027–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Denis F, Viger L, Charron A, Voog E, Dupuis O, Pointreau Y et al (2014) Detection of lung cancer relapse using self-reported symptoms transmitted via an internet web-application: pilot study of the sentinel follow-up. Support Care Cancer 22(6):1467–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blaauwbroek R, Barf HA, Groenier KH, Kremer LC, van der Meer K, Tissing WJE et al (2012) Family doctor-driven follow-up for adult childhood cancer survivors supported by a web-based survivor care plan. J Cancer Surviv 6(2):163–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mishra A, Kapoor L, Mishra SK (2009) Post-operative care through tele-follow up visits in patients undergoing thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy in a resource-constrained environment. J Telemed Telecare 15(2):73–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liaw SS, Huang HM (2013) Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. J Comput & Educ; 60(1):14–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Creswell JW (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. Sage Publications, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baravelli C, Krishnasamy M, Pezaro C, Schofield P, Lotfi-Jam K, Rogers M et al (2009) The views of bowel cancer survivors and health care professionals regarding survivorship care plans and post treatment follow up. J Cancer Surviv 3(2):99–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bender JL (2011) The web of support: a multi-method study examining the role of online communities as a source or peer-to-peer supportive care for breast cancer survivors. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bender JL, Wiljer D, To MJ, Bedard PL, Chung P, Jewett MA et al (2012) Testicular cancer survivors’ supportive care needs and use of online support: a cross-sectional survey. Support Care Cancer 20:2737–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9):1277–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wiljer D, Bender JL, Masino C, Alkazaz N, Brierley J (2012) Alternative methods of sustainable survivorship care. International Association for the Development of the Information Society (IADIS) eHealth Conference. Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hudson SV, Miller SM, Hemler J, Ferrante JM, Lyle J, Oeffinger KC et al (2012) Adult cancer survivors discuss follow-up in primary care: “not what i want, but maybe what i need”. Ann Fam Med 10(5):418–27CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rojas MP, Telaro E, Russo A, Moschetti I, Coe L, Fossati R et al (2005) Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1, CD001768Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Beaver K, Luker KA (2005) Follow-up in breast cancer clinics: reassuring for patients rather than detecting recurrence. Psycho-oncol 14:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Johnson NA, Tublin ME (2008) Postoperative surveillance of differentiated thyroid carcinoma: rationale, techniques, and controversies. Radiology 249(2):429–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mayer EL, Gropper AB, Neville BA, Partridge AH, Cameron DB, Winer EP et al (2012) Breast cancer survivors’ perceptions of survivorship care options. J Clin Oncol 30(2):158–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wright K (2002) Social support within an online cancer community: an assessment of emotional support, perceptions of advantages and disadvantage, and motives for using the community from a communication perspective. J Appl Commun Res 30(3):195–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Walther JB (1996) Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communic Res 23(1):3–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sawka AM, Naeem A, Jones J, Lowe J, Segal P, Goquen J, Gilbert J, Zahedi A, Kelly C, Ezzat S (2014) Persistent posttreatment fatigue in TC survivors: a scoping review. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 43:475–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Maher C, Lewis L, Marshall S, De Bourdeaudhuij I (2014) Are health behaviour change interventions that use online social networks effective? A systematic review. J Med Internet Res 16(2), e40CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Statistics Canada (2010) Canada Internet Use Survey. The Daily. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100510/dq100510a-eng.htm. Accessed 15 Jan 2015
  40. 40.
    Lam E, Strugnell SS, Bajdik C, Holmes D, Wiseman SM (2013) Limited adequacy of TC patient follow-up at a Canadian tertiary care centre. Can J Surg 56(6):385–92CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mechanic D, Meyer S (2000) Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness. Soc Sci Med 51(5):657–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Croker JE, Swancutt DR, Roberts MJ, Abel GA, Roland M, Campbell JL (2013) Factors affecting patients’ trust and confidence in GPs: evidence from the English national GP patient survey. BMJ 3(5), e002762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Draper M, Cohen P, Buchan H (2001) Seeking consumer views: what use are results of hospital patient satisfaction surveys? Int J Qual Heal Care 13(6):463–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacqueline L. Bender
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • David Wiljer
    • 4
  • Anna M. Sawka
    • 5
    • 6
  • Richard Tsang
    • 7
    • 8
  • Nour Alkazaz
    • 1
  • James D. Brierley
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.ELLICSR Health, Wellness and Cancer Survivorship CentreUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Global Health InnovationUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Dalla Lana School of Public HealthUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Centre for Addiction and Mental HealthTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Division of EndocrinologyUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Department of EndocrinologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  7. 7.Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  8. 8.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations