Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The role of routine follow-up visits of prostate cancer survivors in addressing supportive care and information needs: a qualitative observational study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To understand the role of routine follow-up visits in addressing prostate cancer survivors’ supportive care and information needs.

Methods

We audio-recorded follow-up visits of 32 prostate cancer survivors. Follow-up visits were analyzed according to the Verona Network of Sequence Analysis. We categorized survivors’ cues, concerns, and questions into five supportive care domains and divided the responses by the healthcare professionals into providing versus reducing space that is to determine whether or not the response invites the patient to talk more about the expressed cue or concern.

Results

Prostate cancer survivors mostly expressed cues, concerns, and questions (in the health system and information domain) about test results, potential impotence treatment, follow-up appointments, and (their) cancer treatment during follow-up visits. Survivors also expressed urinary complaints (physical and daily living domain) and worry about the recurrence of prostate cancer (psychological domain). Healthcare professionals were two times more likely to provide space on cues and concerns related to the physical and daily living domain than to psychological related issues.

Conclusion

Follow-up visits can serve to address prostate cancer survivors’ supportive care and information needs, especially on the health system, information, and physical and daily living domain. Survivors also expressed problems in the psychological domain, although healthcare professionals scarcely provided space to these issues. We would like to encourage clinicians to use these results to personalize follow-up care. Also, these data can be used to develop tailored (eHealth) interventions to address supportive care and information needs and to develop new models of survivorship care delivery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The dataset used and analyzed during the current study will be available from the corresponding author (stored in a data repository at the Netherlands Cancer Institute) on reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. SEER. Cancer Stat Facts: prostate cancer Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available from:  https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html. Accessed 11 Feb 2021

  2. IKNL (2019) Prevalence prostate cancer [Prevalentie prostaatkanker]. Available from: https://www.iknl.nl/kankersoorten/prostaatkanker/registratie/prevalentie. Accessed 11 Feb 2021

  3. European Commission. Epidemiology of prostate cancer in Europe 2015. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/epidemiology-prostate-cancer-europe. Accessed 11 Feb 2021

  4. Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, De Santis M, Fanti S et al. Guidelines on prostate cancer 2020. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/. Accessed 17 Sept 2020

  5. Skolarus TA, Wolf AM, Erb NL, Brooks DD, Rivers BM, Underwood W et al (2014) American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin 64(4):225–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lardas M, Liew M, van den Bergh RC, De Santis M, Bellmunt J, Van den Broeck T et al (2017) Quality of life outcomes after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 72(6):869–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dale W, Bilir P, Han M, Meltzer D (2005) The role of anxiety in prostate carcinoma: a structured review of the literature. Cancer 104(3):467–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Watson E, Shinkins B, Frith E, Neal D, Hamdy F, Walter F et al (2016) Symptoms, unmet needs, psychological well-being and health status in survivors of prostate cancer: implications for redesigning follow-up. BJU Int 117(6b):10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jang JW, Drumm MR, Efstathiou JA, Paly JJ, Niemierko A, Ancukiewicz M et al (2017) Long-term quality of life after definitive treatment for prostate cancer: patient-reported outcomes in the second posttreatment decade. Cancer Med 6(7):1827–1836

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Darwish-Yassine M, Berenji M, Wing D, Copeland G, Demers RY, Garlinghouse C et al (2014) Evaluating long-term patient-centered outcomes following prostate cancer treatment: findings from the Michigan Prostate Cancer Survivor study. J Cancer Surviv 8(1):121–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. King AJ, Evans M, Moore TH, Paterson C, Sharp D, Persad R et al (2015) Prostate cancer and supportive care: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis of men’s experiences and unmet needs. Eur J Cancer Care 24(5):618–634

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chambers SK, Hyde MK, Smith DP, Hughes S, Yuill S, Egger S et al (2017) New challenges in psycho-oncology research III: a systematic review of psychological interventions for prostate cancer survivors and their partners: clinical and research implications. Psychooncology 26(7):873–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ream E, Quennell A, Fincham L, Faithfull S, Khoo V, Wilson-Barnett J et al (2008) Supportive care needs of men living with prostate cancer in England: a survey. Br J Cancer 98(12):1903–1909

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Walker MS, Ristvedt SL, Haughey BH (2003) Patient care in multidisciplinary cancer clinics: does attention to psychosocial needs predict patient satisfaction? Psychooncology 12(3):291–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mazariego CG, Juraskova I, Campbell R, Smith DP (2020) Long-term unmet supportive care needs of prostate cancer survivors: 15-year follow-up from the NSW Prostate Cancer Care and Outcomes Study. Support Care Cancer 28(11):5511–5520

  16. Paterson C, Robertson A, Smith A, Nabi G (2015) Identifying the unmet supportive care needs of men living with and beyond prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur J Oncol Nurs 19(4):405–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bernat JK, Wittman DA, Hawley ST, Hamstra DA, Helfand AM, Haggstrom DA et al (2016) Symptom burden and information needs in prostate cancer survivors: a case for tailored long-term survivorship care. BJU Int 118(3):372–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Watson M, Davolls S, Mohammed K, Shepherd S (2015) The influence of life stage on supportive care and information needs in cancer patients: does older age matter? Support Care Cancer 23(10):2981–2988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith DP, Supramaniam R, King MT, Ward J, Berry M, Armstrong BK (2007) Age, health, and education determine supportive care needs of men younger than 70 years with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 25(18):2560–2566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E (2006) From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mayer DK, Nasso SF, Earp JA (2017) Defining cancer survivors, their needs, and perspectives on survivorship health care in the USA. Lancet Oncol 18(1):e11–e18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gezondheidsraad (2007) Nacontrole in de oncologie. Doelen onderscheiden, inhoud en onderbouwen [Aftercare in oncology. Distinguish goals, content and substantiate]. Available from: https://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/documenten/adviezen/2007/03/27/nacontrole-in-de-oncologie.-doelen-onderscheiden-inhoud-onderbouwen. Accessed 11 Feb 2021

  23. Independent Cancer Taskforce (2015) Achieving world-class cancer outcome. A strategy for England 2015-2020. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/achieving-world-class-cancer-outcomes/. Accessed 11 Feb 2021

  24. Zimmermann C, Del Piccolo L, Bensing J, Bergvik S, De Haes H, Eide H et al (2011) Coding patient emotional cues and concerns in medical consultations: the Verona coding definitions of emotional sequences (VR-CoDES). Patient Educ Couns 82(2):141–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Del Piccolo L, de Haes H, Heaven C, Jansen J, Verheul W, Bensing J et al (2011) Development of the Verona coding definitions of emotional sequences to code health providers’ responses (VR-CoDES-P) to patient cues and concerns. Patient Educ Couns 82(2):149–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Eide H, Eide T, Rustøen T, Finset A (2011) Patient validation of cues and concerns identified according to Verona coding definitions of emotional sequences (VR-CoDES): a video- and interview-based approach. Patient Educ Couns 82(2):156–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Boyes A, Girgis A, Lecathelinais C (2009) Brief assessment of adult cancer patients’ perceived needs: development and validation of the 34-item Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34). J Eval Clin Pract 15(4):602–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. van de Wal M, van Oort I, Schouten J, Thewes B, Gielissen M, Prins J (2016) Fear of cancer recurrence in prostate cancer survivors. Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) 55(7):821–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Forbes CC, Finlay A, McIntosh M, Siddiquee S, Short CE (2019) A systematic review of the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of online supportive care interventions targeting men with a history of prostate cancer. J Cancer Surviv 13(1):75–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Penedo FJ, Oswald LB, Kronenfeld JP, Garcia SF, Cella D, Yanez B (2020) The increasing value of eHealth in the delivery of patient-centred cancer care. Lancet Oncol 21(5):e240–e251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. O’Brien R, Rose P, Campbell C, Weller D, Neal RD, Wilkinson C et al (2011) “I wish I’d told them”: a qualitative study examining the unmet psychosexual needs of prostate cancer patients during follow-up after treatment. Patient Educ Couns 84(2):200–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Butow PN, Brown RF, Cogar S, Tattersall MH, Dunn SM (2002) Oncologists’ reactions to cancer patients’ verbal cues. Psychooncology 11(1):47–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wind J, Duineveld LA, van der Heijden RP, van Asselt KM, Bemelman WA, van Weert HC (2013) Follow-up after colon cancer treatment in the Netherlands; a survey of patients, GPs, and colorectal surgeons. EJSO 39(8):837–843

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Meissner VH, Herkommer K, Marten-Mittag B, Gschwend JE, Dinkel A (2017) Prostate cancer-related anxiety in long-term survivors after radical prostatectomy. J Cancer Surviv 11(6):800–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McCarter K, Britton B, Baker AL, Halpin SA, Beck AK, Carter G et al (2018) Interventions to improve screening and appropriate referral of patients with cancer for psychosocial distress: systematic review. BMJ Open 8(1):e017959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Donovan KA, Grassi L, Deshields TL, Corbett C, Riba MB (2020) Advancing the science of distress screening and management in cancer care. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 29:e85

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all study participants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Barbara M. Wollersheim & Annelies H. Boekhout

  2. Department of General Practice, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Ellis Helweg

  3. Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Corinne N. Tillier, H. A. M. van Muilekom & Henk G. van der Poel

  4. Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Willem de Blok

  5. Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Kristel M. van Asselt

Authors
  1. Barbara M. Wollersheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ellis Helweg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Corinne N. Tillier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. A. M. van Muilekom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Willem de Blok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Henk G. van der Poel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kristel M. van Asselt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Annelies H. Boekhout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Ellis Helweg, Kristel van Asselt, and Annelies Boekhout. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Barbara Wollersheim, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annelies H. Boekhout.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Institutional review board of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, location Amsterdam Medical Center, approved the study (reference number W20_415#20.462).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

All authors read and approved the final manuscript and gave consent for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wollersheim, B.M., Helweg, E., Tillier, C.N. et al. The role of routine follow-up visits of prostate cancer survivors in addressing supportive care and information needs: a qualitative observational study. Support Care Cancer 29, 6449–6457 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06222-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06222-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation