Paradoxes of follow-up – health professionals’ views on follow-up after surgical treatment in gynecological cancer

References

• NORDCAN, Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Kræftstatistik: Nøgletal og figurer Danmark – Alle kræftformer undtagen anden hud. 2013. [cited 2013 Sep 13]. Available from: http://www-dep.iarc.fr/NORDCAN/DK/StatsFact.asp?cancer = 410&country = 208.
   Google Scholar
• Kræftens Bekæmpelse. Danmark: Prævalens, alder 0-85 + Alle kræftformer undtagen anden hud, Begge køn. 2013; [cited 2014 April 1] Available from: http://www.cancer.dk/Hjaelp+viden/fakta+ om+ kraeft/kraeft+ i+ tal/antal+ der+ lever+ med+ kraeft/.
   Google Scholar
• DGCG. Retningslinier for visitation, diagnostik, behandling og kontrol af cancer corporis uteri. 2006; [cited 2014 April 1] Available from: http://www.dgcg.dk/images/retningslinier/Corpuscancer/Endometriecancer_guidelines.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Geurts SM, van Altena AM, de Vegt F, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Massuger LF, van Dijck JA, et al. No supportive evidence for clinical benefit of routine follow-up in ovarian cancer: A Dutch multicenter study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011; 21:647–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lajer H, Jensen MB, Kilsmark J, Albaek J, Svane D, Mirza MR, et al. The value of gynecologic cancer follow-up: Evidence-based ignorance?Int J Gynecol Cancer 2010;20:1307–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vistad I, Moy BW, Salvesen HB, Liavaag AH. Follow-up routines in gynecological cancer – time for a change?Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90:707–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanceley A, Fiander A, McCormack M, Bryant A. Follow-up protocols for women with cervical cancer after primary treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013 Nov 25;11:CD008767.
   Google Scholar
• Austin GJ, van der Burg ME, Griffin CL, Guthrie D, Lamont A, Jayson GC, et al. Early versus delayed treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer (MRC OV05/EORTC 55955): A randomised trial. Lancet 2010;376:1155–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danish Health and Medicines Authority. Opfølgningsprogram for gynækologiske kræftformer. 2014 (in press); Available from: [citet 2014 July 1] http://www.dsr.dk/fs/fs32/PublishingImages/Notat%20vedr%20%20opf%C3%B8lgning%20af%20kr%C3%A6ftpatienter%20(2).pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Akyuz A, Guvenc G, Ustunsoz A, Kaya T. Living with gynecologic cancer: Experience of women and their partners. J Nurs Scholarsh 2008;40:241–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley E, Pitts M, Redman C, Calvert E, Howells R, Wafai C. What are the factors associated with the follow-up preferences of women in long-term remission from gynaecological cancer?J Obstet Gynaecol 2000;20:408–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greimel E, Lahousen M, Dorfer M, Lambauer M, Lang U. Patients’ view of routine follow-up after gynecological cancer treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;159: 180–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Giudice ME, Grunfeld E, Harvey BJ, Piliotis E, Verma S. Primary care physicians’ views of routine follow-up care of cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3338–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kew FM, Galaal K, Manderville H, Verleye L. Professionals’ and patients’ views of routine follow-up: A questionnaire survey. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007;17:557–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vistad I, Cvancarova M, Salvesen HB. Follow-up of gynecological cancer patients after treatment – the views of European experts in gynecologic oncology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012;91:1286–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lydon A, Beaver K, Newbery C, Wray J. Routine follow-up after treatment for ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom (UK): Patient and health professional views. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2009;13:336–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorne S. Interpretive descprition. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press, Inc.; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Hunt MR. Strengths and challenges in the use of interpretive description: Reflections arising from a study of the moral experience of health professionals in humanitarian work. Qual Health Res 2009;19:1284–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly S. Qualitative interviewing techniques and styles. In: Bourgeault I, Dingwall R, de Vries R, editors. The SAGE Handbook of qualitative methods in health research. Los Angeles: Sage; 2010. p. 307.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl L, Væggemose U, Petersen L, Blaakaer J, Wittrup I. Kræftpatienters og lægers erfaringer med kontrolforløb er forskellige. Ugeskr L ger 2014;176: V10130634 (accepted for publication).
   Google Scholar
• Beaver K, Hollingworth W, McDonald R, Dunn G, Tysver-Robinson D, Thomson L, et al. Is telephone follow-up by specialist nurses a cost effective approach? Eur J Cancer Suppl 2009;7:230–1.
   Google Scholar
• Grunfeld E, Levine MN, Julian JA, Coyle D, Szechtman B, Mirsky D, et al. Randomized trial of long-term follow-up for early-stage breast cancer: A comparison of family physician versus specialist care. J Clin Oncol 2006;24: 848–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bidstrup PE, Mertz BG, Dalton SO, Deltour I, Kroman N, Kehlet H, et al. Accuracy of the Danish version of the ‘distress thermometer’. Psychooncology 2012;21:436–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan DA, Gallagher P, Wright S, Cassidy EM. Sensitivity and specificity of the Distress Thermometer and a two-item depression screen (Patient Health Questionnaire-2) with a ‘help’ question for psychological distress and psychiatric morbidity in patients with advanced cancer. Psychooncology 2012;21:1275–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar