IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v26y2017i13-14p1770-1786.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing patient outcomes and cost‐effectiveness of nurse‐led follow‐up for women with breast cancer – have relevant and sensitive evaluation measures been used?

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Browall
  • Christina Forsberg
  • Yvonne Wengström

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore how interventions using nurse‐led follow‐up in breast cancer care have been evaluated with a focus on patient outcomes and cost‐effectiveness. Background As part of the advancement of breast care, nurse‐led follow‐up is increasingly used as an alternative to routine hospital follow‐up in outpatient clinics. There is evidence suggesting that patients appear to be satisfied with the nurse‐led follow‐up, but there is a lack of evidence of whether this perception equates to patients’ satisfaction with the model of physician‐led follow‐up. Design Systematic review. Method Three databases were searched, and 29 RCT were initially screened. Finally, 13 articles were critically appraised. Searches included articles between 2005–2013. The quality of appraisal assessment was inspired by the GRADE system. Results The results show that there are many different instruments used when evaluating nurse‐led follow‐up, which makes it difficult to compare the studies. Several of the studies used QoL as an outcome measure; this is a broad concept that includes several aspects ranging from social role and psychosocial issues to symptoms and therefore difficult to use as an outcome measure. Only two of the studies made any cost‐effective analyses, and the results are hard to interpret. Conclusions Nurse‐led follow‐up can potentially result in better continuity of care and the availability of more time to provide psychosocial support and address patients’ information needs. However, more well‐conducted research is needed before equivalence to physician‐led follow‐up can be assessed in terms of survival, recurrence, patient well‐being and cost‐effectiveness. Relevance to clinical practice Results from well‐conducted evaluation studies of nurse‐led services based on theory are needed so that relevant interventions can be implemented in clinical practice. There is a need to in future studies include cost‐effectiveness analyses to compare nurse‐led services with other types of follow‐up.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Browall & Christina Forsberg & Yvonne Wengström, 2017. "Assessing patient outcomes and cost‐effectiveness of nurse‐led follow‐up for women with breast cancer – have relevant and sensitive evaluation measures been used?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(13-14), pages 1770-1786, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:13-14:p:1770-1786
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13496
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13496?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sharon M Brownie, 2018. "The economic impact of nursing," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(21-22), pages 3825-3826, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:13-14:p:1770-1786. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.