Publicatie
The need of making cancer survivors special' patients.
Geelen, E., Akker, M. van den, Krumeich, A., Boom, H.A. van der, Schellevis, F.G. The need of making cancer survivors special' patients.: , 2011. 32 p. Abstract. The Cancer and Primary Care Research International Network (Ca-PRI) 4th international Annual Meeting 'New pathways in cancer care: Substitution from Secondary to Primary Care?', 26-27 mei 2011, Noordwijkerhout. In: Abstractbook Ca-PRI 2011. Noordwijkerhout: The Cancer and Primary Care Research International Network, 2011.
Lees online
Introduction: Last decades the number of people with a history of cancer has increased enormously. Not only has the number of cancer diagnoses grown, there is also a growing number of cancer survivors as a result of improved treatment. Although most follow-up still takes place in specialized medical care in hospital, there is a tendency to substitute this to primary care; mainly because of financial reasons, but also because cancer survivors’ complaints are in particular psychological or social, instead of medical. It is assumed that primary care is equipped better to care for people who suffer from fatigue, fear, depression, relational problems or problems with resumption of work. Aim: In our study we tried to get insight into the way professionals in primary health care perceive cancer, cancer survivors and follow-up cancer care, and which problems they experience. Methods: We interviewed 35 professionals in primary health care (general practitioners, nurses, paramedics, social workers and psychologists) in depth. Besides, two focus groups were organised: one of professionals and one of cancer survivors. In our analysis we searched for differences and similarities of ideas, experiences and opinions within, as well as between the specific groups of respondents. Results: Analysis showed that various professionals have different perspectives on cancer and cancer survivors and on ‘good’ care for these people. While some professionals consider them as ‘special’ patients who need specific care, others (particularly general practitioners) see them much more as ‘normal’ patients for whom ‘normal’ care satisfies. Related to this, professionals show ambivalence with respect to the question who should play the central role in care for these people. General practitioners often co-ordinate primary care, but it is questionable whether they also must have that role in the context of chronic cancer. Discussion/conclusions: In the light of the characteristics of their work, it is not surprising that professionals have their own perspective on cancer survivors, as well as on ‘good’ care for these people. In outlining new pathways in cancer care, however, it is necessary to make these differences more explicit. Only then, it will be possible to guarantee optimal primary follow-up cancer care. Study performed by the working party 'Primary Care for Cancer Patients during Follow-up' of the Signaling Committee Cancer of the Dutch Cancer Society. (aut. ref.)
Introduction: Last decades the number of people with a history of cancer has increased enormously. Not only has the number of cancer diagnoses grown, there is also a growing number of cancer survivors as a result of improved treatment. Although most follow-up still takes place in specialized medical care in hospital, there is a tendency to substitute this to primary care; mainly because of financial reasons, but also because cancer survivors’ complaints are in particular psychological or social, instead of medical. It is assumed that primary care is equipped better to care for people who suffer from fatigue, fear, depression, relational problems or problems with resumption of work. Aim: In our study we tried to get insight into the way professionals in primary health care perceive cancer, cancer survivors and follow-up cancer care, and which problems they experience. Methods: We interviewed 35 professionals in primary health care (general practitioners, nurses, paramedics, social workers and psychologists) in depth. Besides, two focus groups were organised: one of professionals and one of cancer survivors. In our analysis we searched for differences and similarities of ideas, experiences and opinions within, as well as between the specific groups of respondents. Results: Analysis showed that various professionals have different perspectives on cancer and cancer survivors and on ‘good’ care for these people. While some professionals consider them as ‘special’ patients who need specific care, others (particularly general practitioners) see them much more as ‘normal’ patients for whom ‘normal’ care satisfies. Related to this, professionals show ambivalence with respect to the question who should play the central role in care for these people. General practitioners often co-ordinate primary care, but it is questionable whether they also must have that role in the context of chronic cancer. Discussion/conclusions: In the light of the characteristics of their work, it is not surprising that professionals have their own perspective on cancer survivors, as well as on ‘good’ care for these people. In outlining new pathways in cancer care, however, it is necessary to make these differences more explicit. Only then, it will be possible to guarantee optimal primary follow-up cancer care. Study performed by the working party 'Primary Care for Cancer Patients during Follow-up' of the Signaling Committee Cancer of the Dutch Cancer Society. (aut. ref.)