FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1522445567> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1522445567 abstract "Background: Routine follow up of patients9 post treatment of breast cancer is standard practice in most countries. Follow up involves regularly scheduled clinical appointments with the aim of detecting early breast cancer recurrence and provision of psychological support to the patient. In the United Kingdom, financial constraint has led individual hospital trusts to revaluate the need for lengthy follow up schedules. Development of novel, less time intensive follow-up services, such as ‘open access follow up’ favour a more patient-led approach. Aim: To assess patients9 views on breast cancer follow up, as well as the effect on patient satisfaction of transferring current clinical follow up to an 9open access follow up9. Method: We report the patients’ views on the basis of pooled data of a detailed survey performed in a large Breast Cancer Centre. All patients receiving regular clinical follow up care over a 6-month period were invited to participate in this prospective study. Patients were provided with a flow-chart, illustrating the current follow up, as well as a proposed ‘open access follow up’ process. Results: Between November 2013 and April 2014, 304 patients were recruited into the study. 39% of patients were within the first year of their diagnosis with 18% more than 3 years into their follow up. Caucasian women made up the majority of our population group (81%), with 7% Indo-Asian, and 7% Afro-Caribbean. The main expectation from follow up was surveillance for early detection of recurrence as expressed by 92% and anxiety of treatment side effects. 93% were satisfied with the current follow up they were receiving (satisfaction scores 7-10) and of those, 84% would choose to continue current follow up rather than move toward an ‘open access’ approach. 92% of patients favoured current clinical follow up over ‘open access follow up’, with 66% highlighting ‘open access follow up’ as an ineffective method of follow up. In stark contrast, 94% of patients reported current clinical led follow up to be effective. 91% of patients requested their follow up to be led by a breast surgeon and oncologist, rather than their primary care physician or community nurse. Interestingly, no significant correlation was established between age, ethnic background, distance from hospital and time from diagnosis with the type of follow up preferred. Conclusion: Following treatment for breast cancer, patients prefer a more regular clinician-led service to a patient-led ‘open access follow up’ process. This may be explained by the observation that patients seek the reassurance of regular clinical review to identify recurrence early, however the psychological support of a clinical consultation cannot be underestimated. It may be inferred that patients who are satisfied in the follow up they were currently receiving are more likely to appreciate the current follow up system rather than moving to an ‘open access9 approach. Further study is warranted which investigates the impact of intensified surveillance on survival based on identification of recurrence and to repeat this study to seek consistency of opinion. Citation Format: Samantha T Muktar, Paul TR Thiruchelvam, Dimitri Hadjiminas. Patient9s views of follow-up after treatment for breast cancer. A comparison of two approaches [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-09-19." @default.
• W1522445567 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1522445567 creator A5022596026 @default.
• W1522445567 creator A5039511636 @default.
• W1522445567 creator A5071940331 @default.
• W1522445567 date "2015-04-30" @default.
• W1522445567 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1522445567 title "Abstract P1-09-19: Patient's views of follow-up after treatment for breast cancer. A comparison of two approaches" @default.
• W1522445567 doi "https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs14-p1-09-19" @default.
• W1522445567 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W1522445567 type Work @default.
• W1522445567 sameAs 1522445567 @default.
• W1522445567 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1522445567 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W1522445567 hasAuthorship W1522445567A5022596026 @default.
• W1522445567 hasAuthorship W1522445567A5039511636 @default.
• W1522445567 hasAuthorship W1522445567A5071940331 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConcept C187212893 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConcept C2775944032 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConcept C2779974597 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConcept C530470458 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConcept C558461103 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConceptScore W1522445567C118552586 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConceptScore W1522445567C121608353 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConceptScore W1522445567C126322002 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConceptScore W1522445567C141071460 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConceptScore W1522445567C187212893 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConceptScore W1522445567C2775944032 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConceptScore W1522445567C2779974597 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConceptScore W1522445567C2908647359 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConceptScore W1522445567C512399662 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConceptScore W1522445567C530470458 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConceptScore W1522445567C558461103 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConceptScore W1522445567C71924100 @default.
• W1522445567 hasConceptScore W1522445567C99454951 @default.
• W1522445567 hasLocation W15224455671 @default.
• W1522445567 hasOpenAccess W1522445567 @default.
• W1522445567 hasPrimaryLocation W15224455671 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W142692789 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W1999227486 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2006605928 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2018030917 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2023708375 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2062832163 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2112567047 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2123605396 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2163541856 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2401592534 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2403260627 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2406900596 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2407019817 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2409966096 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2553976558 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2556861754 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2807837831 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W2928773514 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W3003024926 @default.
• W1522445567 hasRelatedWork W3138271957 @default.
• W1522445567 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1522445567 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1522445567 magId "1522445567" @default.
• W1522445567 workType "article" @default.