Patients’ perspective on the quality of prostate cancer follow-up care.

Abstract

175 Background: Information about prostate cancer patients’ perspective on the quality of their follow-up care in the hospital is important to optimize survivorship care. This study assessed the quality of prostate cancer follow-up care as experienced by cancer patients and its association with patients’ sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and treatment-related symptom burden. Methods: We surveyed 385 (response rate, 100%) patients with localized prostate cancer participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing the (cost)effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. For this study, we used baseline data that were collected during patients’ first follow-up visit at the hospital (2-34 weeks) after primary treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy) prior to randomization. We assessed patients’ ratings of the quality of follow-up care using the Assessment of Patient Experiences of Cancer Care survey. This survey consists of thirteen scales: getting needed care, timeliness of care, waiting time in physician’s office, information exchange, physician’s affective behavior, physicians’ knowledge about patients’ life, interaction with nurses, interaction with office staff, symptom management, symptom information provision, health promotion, coordination of care, and overall rating of care. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with perceived quality of follow-up care. Results: Patients reported positive experiences with follow-up care for 10 of 13 scales, with mean scores ranging from 72 to 97 (on a 0-100 response scale). The three scales where patients reported suboptimal follow-up care were symptom management (mean score of 43), health promotion (mean score of 45), and physicians’ knowledge about patients’ life (mean score of 66). Overall, patients’ report of suboptimal quality of follow-up care was associated significantly with being more highly educated, not having a partner, being older, having multiple comorbidities, and experiencing symptoms (urinary, bowel, and hormonal symptoms). Conclusions: Prostate cancer patients were generally positive about their initial, hospital-based follow-up care after primary surgery or radiation. However, physicians’ knowledge about patients’ lives, symptom management, and health promotion was rated as suboptimal. The findings point to areas where prostate cancer survivorship care can be improved.