Patient preferences for GI cancer surveillance and telemedical follow-up. (September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Smith, David T.; Barrett, James; Acher, Alexandra W.; Joachim, Alyssa; Huynh, Brandon; Schreiter, Nicholas; Stafford, Linda Cherney; Abbott, Daniel E.; Alagoz, Esra
• Is Part Of: Surgical oncology. Volume 38(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-09
• Subjects: Telemedicine -- GI Cancer -- Cancer surveillance; Cancer -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- surgery -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.994059
• DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2021.101593
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0960-7404

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Surveillance care including routine physical exams and testing following gastrointestinal (GI) cancer treatment can be fiscally and emotionally burdensome for patients. Emerging technology platforms may provide a resource-wise surveillance strategy. However, effective implementation of GI cancer surveillance is limited by a lack of patient level perspective regarding surveillance. This study aimed to describe patient attitudes toward GI cancer surveillance and which care modalities such as telemedicine and care team composition best meet the patient's needs for follow-up care. Methods: Focused interviews were conducted with 15 GI cancer patients undergoing surveillance following curative-intent surgery. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and uploaded to NVivo. Study personnel trained in qualitative methods consensus coded 10% of data inductively and iteratively developed a codebook and code descriptions. Using all transcripts, data matrices were developed to identify themes inherent in the transcripts. Results: Qualitative analysis revealed three overarching themes. First, increasing ease of access to surveillance care through telemedicine follow-up services may interfere with patients' preferred follow-up routine, which is an in-office visit. Second, specialist providers were trusted by patients to deliver surveillance care more than primary care providers (PCPs). Thirdly, patients desired improved psychosocial health support during the surveillance period. Conclusion: These novel patient-level qualitative data demonstrate that replacing conventional in-office GI cancer surveillance care with telemedicine is not what many patients desire. These data also demonstrate that his cohort of patients prefer to see specialists for GI cancer surveillance care rather than PCPs. Future efforts to enhance surveillance should include increased psychosocial support. Telemedicine implementation should be personalized toward specific populations who may be interested in fewer in-office surveillance visits. Highlights: Efforts to expand telemedical infrastructure may not align with patient values. Specialist providers are trusted over PCPs to provide GI cancer follow-up care. GI cancer surveillance patients express a need for improved psychosocial care.