Skip to main content
main-content

27.06.2019 | Ausgabe 4/2019

Journal of Cancer Survivorship 4/2019

A comparison of two models of follow-up care for adult survivors of childhood cancer

Zeitschrift:
Journal of Cancer Survivorship > Ausgabe 4/2019
Autoren:
K. Reynolds, M. Spavor, Y. Brandelli, C. Kwok, Y. Li, M. Disciglio, L. E. Carlson, F. Schulte, R. Anderson, P. Grundy, J. Giese-Davis
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11764-019-00774-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Drs. Kathleen Reynolds and Maria Spavor share joint first authorship for this manuscript.

Publisher’s note

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

Abstract

Purpose

Few studies have compared follow-up-care models for adult survivors of childhood cancer (ASCCs), though choice of model could impact medical test adherence, and health-related quality of life (QOL). This study compared two follow-up-care models, cancer-center-based versus community-based, for ASCCs in Alberta, Canada, to determine which model would demonstrate greater ASCC adherence to guideline-recommended medical screening tests for late effects, QOL, physical symptoms, and adherence to yearly follow-up.

Methods

ASCC discharged to a community model (over 15 years) and those with comparable birth years (1973–1993) currently followed in a cancer center model were recruited via direct contact or multimedia campaign. Chart review identified chemotherapeutic and radiation exposures, and required medical late effect screening tests. ASCCs also completed questionnaires assessing QOL, physical symptoms, and follow-up behavior.

Results

One hundred fifty-six survivors participated (community (n = 86); cancer center (n = 70)). Primary analysis indicated that cancer center ASCCs guideline-recommended total test adherence percentage (Mdn = 85.4%) was significantly higher than the community model (Mdn = 29.2%, U = 3996.50, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in QOL for cancer center ASCCs (M = 83.85, SD = 20.55 versus M = 77.50, SD = 23.94; t (154) = 1.77, p = 0.078) compared to community-based ASCCs. Cancer center–based ASCCs endorsed from 0.4–7.1% fewer physical symptom clusters, and higher adherence to follow-up behavior in comparisons using effect sizes without p values.

Conclusion

This study highlights the cancer center model’s superiority for adherence to exposure-based medical late effect screening guidelines, cancer-specific follow-up behaviors, and the reporting of fewer physical complaints in ASCCs.

Implications for cancer survivors

ASCCs followed in a cancer center model likely benefit from earlier late-effects detection and opportunities for early intervention.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag als Mediziner

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Zusatzmaterial
Nur für berechtigte Nutzer zugänglich
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2019

Journal of Cancer Survivorship 4/2019 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Sie können e.Med Innere Medizin 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.