Abstract
Purpose
Current follow-up for head and neck cancer (HNC) is ineffective, expensive and fails to address patients’ needs. The PETNECK2 trial will compare a new model of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) with routine scheduled follow-up. This paper reports UK clinicians’ views about HNC follow-up and PIFU, to inform the trial design.
Methods
Online focus groups with surgeons (ear, nose and throat/maxillofacial), oncologists, clinical nurse specialists and allied health professionals. Clinicians were recruited from professional bodies, mailing lists, and personal contacts. Focus groups explored views on current follow-up and acceptability of the proposed PIFU intervention and RCT design (presented by the study co-chief investigator), preferences, margins of equipoise, potential organisational barriers, and thoughts about content and format of PIFU. Data were interpreted using inductive thematic analysis.
Results
Eight focus groups with 34 clinicians were conducted. Clinicians highlighted already known limitations with HNC follow-up - lack of flexibility to address the wide-ranging needs of HNC patients, expense, and lack of evidence - and agreed that follow-up needs to change. They were enthusiastic about the PETNECK2 trial to develop and evaluate PIFU but had concerns that PIFU may not suit disengaged patients and may aggravate patient anxiety/fear of recurrence and delay detection of recurrence. Anticipated issues with implementation included ensuring a reliable route back to clinic and workload burden on nurses and allied health professionals.
Conclusions
Clinicians support evaluation of PIFU but voiced concerns about barriers to help-seeking. An emphasis on patient engagement, psychosocial issues, symptom reporting, and reliable quick routes back to clinic will be important. Certain patient groups may be less suited to PIFU, which will be evaluated in the trial. Early, meaningful, ongoing engagement with clinical teams and managers around the trial rationale and recruitment process will be important to discourage selective recruitment and address risk-averse behaviour and potential workload burden.
Current follow-up for head and neck cancer (HNC) is ineffective, expensive and fails to address patients’ needs. The PETNECK2 trial will compare a new model of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) with routine scheduled follow-up. This paper reports UK clinicians’ views about HNC follow-up and PIFU, to inform the trial design.
Methods
Online focus groups with surgeons (ear, nose and throat/maxillofacial), oncologists, clinical nurse specialists and allied health professionals. Clinicians were recruited from professional bodies, mailing lists, and personal contacts. Focus groups explored views on current follow-up and acceptability of the proposed PIFU intervention and RCT design (presented by the study co-chief investigator), preferences, margins of equipoise, potential organisational barriers, and thoughts about content and format of PIFU. Data were interpreted using inductive thematic analysis.
Results
Eight focus groups with 34 clinicians were conducted. Clinicians highlighted already known limitations with HNC follow-up - lack of flexibility to address the wide-ranging needs of HNC patients, expense, and lack of evidence - and agreed that follow-up needs to change. They were enthusiastic about the PETNECK2 trial to develop and evaluate PIFU but had concerns that PIFU may not suit disengaged patients and may aggravate patient anxiety/fear of recurrence and delay detection of recurrence. Anticipated issues with implementation included ensuring a reliable route back to clinic and workload burden on nurses and allied health professionals.
Conclusions
Clinicians support evaluation of PIFU but voiced concerns about barriers to help-seeking. An emphasis on patient engagement, psychosocial issues, symptom reporting, and reliable quick routes back to clinic will be important. Certain patient groups may be less suited to PIFU, which will be evaluated in the trial. Early, meaningful, ongoing engagement with clinical teams and managers around the trial rationale and recruitment process will be important to discourage selective recruitment and address risk-averse behaviour and potential workload burden.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 230-240 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Clinical Oncology |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Early online date | 1 Dec 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Apr 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The authors are very grateful to all the participants in the study, to Denis Secher, Pat Rhodes and the PETNECK2 Patient Advisory Group, and to those who helped facilitate recruitment, including staff at BAHNO and Ian Salmon and others at BAHNON. MW is supported by Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.
Funding Information:
This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research ( NIHR ) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (NIHR200861). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors
Keywords
- head and neck cancer
- survivorship
- patient-initiated follow-up
- qualitative
- health care professionals
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Elsevier at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2021.11.010 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Handle.net
Full-text PDF (author accepted manuscript)
Accepted author manuscript, 391 KB
Licence: CC BY-NC-ND