The Head and Neck Survivorship Tool (HN-STAR) Trial (WF-1805CD): A protocol for a cluster-randomized, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, pragmatic trial to improve the follow-up care of head and neck cancer survivors

2021 ◽  
pp. 106448
Author(s):  
Talya Salz ◽  
Jamie Ostroff ◽  
Chandylen Nightingale ◽  
Thomas M. Atkinson ◽  
Eleanor Davidson ◽  
...  
2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 2541-2548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie H. Krebber ◽  
Femke Jansen ◽  
Pim Cuijpers ◽  
C. René Leemans ◽  
Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw

Head & Neck ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin R. Roman ◽  
David Goldenberg ◽  
Babak Givi ◽  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 116-116
Author(s):  
Sven Thomas Alders ◽  
Rosella Hermens

116 Background: Optimal follow-up care for head and neck cancer (HCN) patients has been subject of an ongoing debate. In the Netherlands, the current follow-up schedule is based on a ‘one-size fits all’ concept, and lacks evidence. Additionally, this standardized follow-up fails to reflect the heterogeneity of tumors within HNC. Besides the need of more evidence, improvements should be made by using a more person-centred approach. In this study, we aimed to explore the needs, preferences and values of HNC patient regarding sub-components of follow-up care (form, content, duration, frequency, and type of care provider). Methods: Semi-structured interviews were held with 13 HNC patients (inclusion until saturation) in order to explore the needs, preferences and values of HNC regarding their follow-up care. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and qualitatively analyzed using the eight-dimension Picker model. Results: During follow-up, patients prefer traditional face-to-face appointments, where they have to be physically present at the hospital. Alternative forms (e.g. telephone or Skype-related forms) may only be preferable under certain circumstances ( form). Physical examinations should be leading during these appointments, to look for signs of recurrence ( content). Patients mentioned that information on prognoses and the physical constraints as a consequence of treatment is important during follow-up appointments ( content). In the beginning of the follow-up, a high frequency of appointments was preferred ( duration & frequency). Preferably, follow-up care takes place in the specialized centers ( location). A predominant role has been assigned to the primary treating physician. Additionally, qualified personnel is needed in the continuation and relocation of follow-up care for HNC patient ( type of care provider). Conclusions: The results of this study will enable us to better tailor care to the specific needs, preferences and values of HNC patients. Further research is needed to determine if the results are representative. In the new personalized follow-up, there should be a balance between evidence based options and the needs, preferences and values of patients and different care providers within HNC care.


2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 537-547 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline de Leeuw ◽  
Judith B. Prins ◽  
Steven Teerenstra ◽  
Matthias A. W. Merkx ◽  
Henri A. M. Marres ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. e12993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly E. Brennan ◽  
Stephen F. Hall ◽  
John Yoo ◽  
Susan L. Rohland ◽  
Julie Theurer ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tooba Alwani ◽  
Jennifer N. Shehan ◽  
Jessica LeClair ◽  
Taylor F. Mahoney ◽  
Pratima Agarwal ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petr Szturz ◽  
Carl Van Laer ◽  
Christian Simon ◽  
Dirk Van Gestel ◽  
Jean Bourhis ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document