Follow-up care for cancer survivors: views of the younger adult

• Published in: British journal of cancer Vol. 101; no. 4; pp. 561 - 567
• Main Authors: ABSOLOM, K, EISER, C, MICHEL, G, WALTERS, S. J, HANCOCK, B. W, COLEMAN, R. E, SNOWDEN, J. A, GREENFIELD, D. M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basingstoke Nature Publishing Group 18.08.2009
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Adults; Biological and medical sciences; Breast cancer; Cancer research; Clinical Study; Continuity of Patient Care; Delivery of Health Care - methods; Female; Fertility; Follow-Up Studies; Health Status; Humans; Infertility; Lymphoma; Male; Medical prognosis; Medical research; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Neoplasms - psychology; Neoplasms - therapy; Quality of Life; Surveys and Questionnaires; Survivors - psychology; Tumors; Young Adult; United Kingdom > UK; Human; Survivor; younger adults; Malignant tumor; Care; follow-up; Cancerology; models of care; Follow up study; cancer survivors; Adult; Models; Cancer
• ISSN: 0007-0920; 1532-1827
• DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605213

Since the launch of the National Cancer Survivorship Initiative, there has been a surge of interest surrounding the value and organisation of long-term follow-up care after cancer treatment. We report the views of 309 adult cancer survivors (aged 18-45 years) on provision of follow-up and preferences for care. A total of 207 survivors completed questionnaires before and after routine consultant-led follow-up appointments and 102 were recruited by post. Measures of health status (including late effects, perceived vulnerability to late effects and quality of life), reasons for attending follow-up (clinical and supportive), issues to be discussed at follow-up and preferences for different models of care were assessed. In all, 59% of the survivors reported experiencing one or more cancer-related health problems. Survivors rated clinical reasons for attending follow-up more highly than supportive reasons (P<0.001), although nutritional advice and counselling were considered useful (60 and 47%, respectively). Those still receiving scheduled follow-up appointments did not discuss the range of issues intended with 'late effects' and 'fertility', which were particularly under-discussed. Hospital rather than GP follow-up was more highly rated. Survivors value the clinical reassurance currently provided by consultant-led care. However, supportive needs are not systematically addressed. Multi-disciplinary services are recommended to meet supportive needs in addition to clinical care.