Abstract
BackgroundWith significant improvements in the survival rates for most childhood cancers, there is increased pressure to determine how follow-up or aftercare for survivors is best structured.Main bodyPrevious work in this area has not been consistent in how it categorizes models of aftercare, which risks confusion between studies and evaluations of different models. The adoption of a standardized method for classifying and describing different models of aftercare is necessary in order to maximize the applicability of the available evidence. We identify some of the different ways models of aftercare have been classified in previous research. We then propose a revised taxonomy which allows for a more consistent classification and description of these models. The proposed model bases the classification of models of aftercare on who is the lead provider, and then collects data on five other key features: which other providers are involved in providing aftercare, where care is provided, how are survivors engaged, which services are provided, and who receives aftercare.ConclusionThere is a good deal of interest in the effectiveness of different models of aftercare. Future research in this area would be assisted by the adoption of a shared taxonomy that will allow programs to be identified by their structural type.
Highlights
With significant improvements in the survival rates for most childhood cancers, there is increased pressure to determine how follow-up or aftercare for survivors is best structured.Main body: Previous work in this area has not been consistent in how it categorizes models of aftercare, which risks confusion between studies and evaluations of different models
There is a good deal of interest in the effectiveness of different models of aftercare
Future research in this area would be assisted by the adoption of a shared taxonomy that will allow programs to be identified by their structural type
Summary
With significant improvements in the survival rates for most childhood cancers, there is increased pressure to determine how follow-up or aftercare for survivors is best structured.Main body: Previous work in this area has not been consistent in how it categorizes models of aftercare, which risks confusion between studies and evaluations of different models. One focus of research in this area has been on the effectiveness of different models of post-transition aftercare in supporting and serving survivors of childhood cancer [5, 6] In studying these different models of aftercare, conflicting categorizations have been employed, often without much consideration Main body. Previous Categorizations A model of care describes the structure and type of services provided to patients with a particular condition during a period of time or phase of their disease. It broadly “defines the way health services are delivered” for a group of patients [7, 8].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
