Nurse led follow up and conventional medical follow up in management of patients with lung cancer: randomised trial
Objective: To assess the effectiveness of nurse led follow up in the management of patients with lung cancer. Design:Randomised controlled trial. Setting:Specialist cancer hospital and three cancer units in southeastern England Participants: 203 patients with lung cancer who had completed their init...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BMJ 2002-11, Vol.325 (7373), p.1145-1147 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1147 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7373 |
| container_start_page | 1145 |
| container_title | BMJ |
| container_volume | 325 |
| creator | Moore, Sally Corner, Jessica Haviland, Jo Wells, Mary Salmon, Emma Normand, Charles Brada, Mike Smith, Ian |
| description | Objective: To assess the effectiveness of nurse led follow up in the management of patients with lung cancer. Design:Randomised controlled trial. Setting:Specialist cancer hospital and three cancer units in southeastern England Participants: 203 patients with lung cancer who had completed their initial treatment and were expected to survive for at least 3 months. Intervention: Nurse led follow up of outpatients compared with conventional medical follow up. Outcome measures: Quality of life, patients' satisfaction, general practitioners' satisfaction, survival, symptom-free survival, progression-free survival, use of resources, and comparison of costs. Results: Patient acceptability of nurse led follow up was high: 75% (203/271) of eligible patients consented to participate. Patients who received the intervention had less severe dyspnoea at 3 months (P=0.03) and had better scores for emotional functioning (P=0.03) and less peripheral neuropathy (P=0.05) at 12 months. Intervention group patients scored significantly better in most satisfaction subscales at 3, 6, and 12 months (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bmj.325.7373.1145 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_133453</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>25452899</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>25452899</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b483t-4518f6c353f05a26b74bfa568693396019a8e78d664eca2285e4ad1d04dad4c83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhi0EoqvSH8ABZAkJLmSJ488gcUAraIGqSKj0ankdZ-slsRc7aeHfM1FWW-AAvozleWbmHb8IPSblkhAqXq377ZJWfCmppPDC-D20IEyogitK76NFWfO6UISqI3SS87Ysy4pKVQv-EB2RilEqBVugfDGm7HDnGtzGrou3eNxhExpsY7hxYfAxmA73rvEW4h3iA-5NMBvXA4Rji3dm8HDN-NYP17gbwwZbE6xLr3GCfrH3GWYMyZvuEXrQmi67k308Rl_fv7tcnRXnn08_rN6eF2um6FAwTlQrLOW0LbmpxFqydWu4UKKmtBYlqY1yUjVCMGdNVSnumGlIU7LGNMwqeozezH134xo2sCAvmU7vku9N-qmj8frPTPDXehNvNKGUcQr1L_b1KX4fXR40LGFd15ng4pg1fCARNRET-fzfZCUU6JUAPvsL3MYxwRdnTSQcLgWtgSIzZVPMObn2oJmUejJfg_kazNeT-XoyH2qe_r7sXcXeagCezMA2DzEd8hVnvFL1NLSY8z4P7schb9I3LWAM1xdXK_3pSlyenskv-iPwL2d-0vJ_fb8A_vHSqA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1777757639</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Nurse led follow up and conventional medical follow up in management of patients with lung cancer: randomised trial</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Moore, Sally ; Corner, Jessica ; Haviland, Jo ; Wells, Mary ; Salmon, Emma ; Normand, Charles ; Brada, Mike ; Smith, Ian</creator><creatorcontrib>Moore, Sally ; Corner, Jessica ; Haviland, Jo ; Wells, Mary ; Salmon, Emma ; Normand, Charles ; Brada, Mike ; Smith, Ian</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: To assess the effectiveness of nurse led follow up in the management of patients with lung cancer. Design:Randomised controlled trial. Setting:Specialist cancer hospital and three cancer units in southeastern England Participants: 203 patients with lung cancer who had completed their initial treatment and were expected to survive for at least 3 months. Intervention: Nurse led follow up of outpatients compared with conventional medical follow up. Outcome measures: Quality of life, patients' satisfaction, general practitioners' satisfaction, survival, symptom-free survival, progression-free survival, use of resources, and comparison of costs. Results: Patient acceptability of nurse led follow up was high: 75% (203/271) of eligible patients consented to participate. Patients who received the intervention had less severe dyspnoea at 3 months (P=0.03) and had better scores for emotional functioning (P=0.03) and less peripheral neuropathy (P=0.05) at 12 months. Intervention group patients scored significantly better in most satisfaction subscales at 3, 6, and 12 months (P<0.01 for all subscales at 3 months). No significant differences in general practitioners' overall satisfaction were seen between the two groups. No differences were seen in survival or rates of objective progression, although nurses recorded progression of symptoms sooner than doctors (P=0.01). Intervention patients were more likely to die at home rather than in a hospital or hospice (P=0.04), attended fewer consultations with a hospital doctor during the first 3 months (P=0.004), had fewer radiographs during the first 6 months (P=0.04), and had more radiotherapy within the first 3 months (P=0.01). No other differences were seen between the two groups in terms of the use of resources. Conclusion: Nurse led follow up was acceptable to lung cancer patients and general practitioners and led to positive outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8138</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-5833</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1756-1833</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmj.325.7373.1145</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12433764</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Cancer Care Facilities ; Clinical nursing research ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Death ; Disease-Free Survival ; Economic research ; Family Practice - economics ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Hospital units ; Hospitalization - economics ; Humans ; Lung cancer ; Lung neoplasms ; Lung Neoplasms - economics ; Lung Neoplasms - nursing ; Male ; Medical research ; Medical specialists ; Middle Aged ; Nurses ; Patient Satisfaction ; Quality of Life ; Unit costs</subject><ispartof>BMJ, 2002-11, Vol.325 (7373), p.1145-1147</ispartof><rights>2002 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright 2002 BMJ</rights><rights>Copyright: 2002 (c) 2002 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2002, BMJ 2002</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b483t-4518f6c353f05a26b74bfa568693396019a8e78d664eca2285e4ad1d04dad4c83</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25452899$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/25452899$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,799,881,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12433764$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moore, Sally</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corner, Jessica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haviland, Jo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wells, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salmon, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Normand, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brada, Mike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Ian</creatorcontrib><title>Nurse led follow up and conventional medical follow up in management of patients with lung cancer: randomised trial</title><title>BMJ</title><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><description>Objective: To assess the effectiveness of nurse led follow up in the management of patients with lung cancer. Design:Randomised controlled trial. Setting:Specialist cancer hospital and three cancer units in southeastern England Participants: 203 patients with lung cancer who had completed their initial treatment and were expected to survive for at least 3 months. Intervention: Nurse led follow up of outpatients compared with conventional medical follow up. Outcome measures: Quality of life, patients' satisfaction, general practitioners' satisfaction, survival, symptom-free survival, progression-free survival, use of resources, and comparison of costs. Results: Patient acceptability of nurse led follow up was high: 75% (203/271) of eligible patients consented to participate. Patients who received the intervention had less severe dyspnoea at 3 months (P=0.03) and had better scores for emotional functioning (P=0.03) and less peripheral neuropathy (P=0.05) at 12 months. Intervention group patients scored significantly better in most satisfaction subscales at 3, 6, and 12 months (P<0.01 for all subscales at 3 months). No significant differences in general practitioners' overall satisfaction were seen between the two groups. No differences were seen in survival or rates of objective progression, although nurses recorded progression of symptoms sooner than doctors (P=0.01). Intervention patients were more likely to die at home rather than in a hospital or hospice (P=0.04), attended fewer consultations with a hospital doctor during the first 3 months (P=0.004), had fewer radiographs during the first 6 months (P=0.04), and had more radiotherapy within the first 3 months (P=0.01). No other differences were seen between the two groups in terms of the use of resources. Conclusion: Nurse led follow up was acceptable to lung cancer patients and general practitioners and led to positive outcomes.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Cancer Care Facilities</subject><subject>Clinical nursing research</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Death</subject><subject>Disease-Free Survival</subject><subject>Economic research</subject><subject>Family Practice - economics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Hospital units</subject><subject>Hospitalization - economics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lung cancer</subject><subject>Lung neoplasms</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - economics</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - nursing</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical specialists</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Unit costs</subject><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>1468-5833</issn><issn>1756-1833</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhi0EoqvSH8ABZAkJLmSJ488gcUAraIGqSKj0ankdZ-slsRc7aeHfM1FWW-AAvozleWbmHb8IPSblkhAqXq377ZJWfCmppPDC-D20IEyogitK76NFWfO6UISqI3SS87Ysy4pKVQv-EB2RilEqBVugfDGm7HDnGtzGrou3eNxhExpsY7hxYfAxmA73rvEW4h3iA-5NMBvXA4Rji3dm8HDN-NYP17gbwwZbE6xLr3GCfrH3GWYMyZvuEXrQmi67k308Rl_fv7tcnRXnn08_rN6eF2um6FAwTlQrLOW0LbmpxFqydWu4UKKmtBYlqY1yUjVCMGdNVSnumGlIU7LGNMwqeozezH134xo2sCAvmU7vku9N-qmj8frPTPDXehNvNKGUcQr1L_b1KX4fXR40LGFd15ng4pg1fCARNRET-fzfZCUU6JUAPvsL3MYxwRdnTSQcLgWtgSIzZVPMObn2oJmUejJfg_kazNeT-XoyH2qe_r7sXcXeagCezMA2DzEd8hVnvFL1NLSY8z4P7schb9I3LWAM1xdXK_3pSlyenskv-iPwL2d-0vJ_fb8A_vHSqA</recordid><startdate>20021116</startdate><enddate>20021116</enddate><creator>Moore, Sally</creator><creator>Corner, Jessica</creator><creator>Haviland, Jo</creator><creator>Wells, Mary</creator><creator>Salmon, Emma</creator><creator>Normand, Charles</creator><creator>Brada, Mike</creator><creator>Smith, Ian</creator><general>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</general><general>British Medical Association</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20021116</creationdate><title>Nurse led follow up and conventional medical follow up in management of patients with lung cancer: randomised trial</title><author>Moore, Sally ; Corner, Jessica ; Haviland, Jo ; Wells, Mary ; Salmon, Emma ; Normand, Charles ; Brada, Mike ; Smith, Ian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b483t-4518f6c353f05a26b74bfa568693396019a8e78d664eca2285e4ad1d04dad4c83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Cancer Care Facilities</topic><topic>Clinical nursing research</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Death</topic><topic>Disease-Free Survival</topic><topic>Economic research</topic><topic>Family Practice - economics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Hospital units</topic><topic>Hospitalization - economics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lung cancer</topic><topic>Lung neoplasms</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - economics</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - nursing</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical specialists</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Unit costs</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moore, Sally</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corner, Jessica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haviland, Jo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wells, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salmon, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Normand, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brada, Mike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Ian</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moore, Sally</au><au>Corner, Jessica</au><au>Haviland, Jo</au><au>Wells, Mary</au><au>Salmon, Emma</au><au>Normand, Charles</au><au>Brada, Mike</au><au>Smith, Ian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Nurse led follow up and conventional medical follow up in management of patients with lung cancer: randomised trial</atitle><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><date>2002-11-16</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>325</volume><issue>7373</issue><spage>1145</spage><epage>1147</epage><pages>1145-1147</pages><issn>0959-8138</issn><eissn>1468-5833</eissn><eissn>1756-1833</eissn><abstract>Objective: To assess the effectiveness of nurse led follow up in the management of patients with lung cancer. Design:Randomised controlled trial. Setting:Specialist cancer hospital and three cancer units in southeastern England Participants: 203 patients with lung cancer who had completed their initial treatment and were expected to survive for at least 3 months. Intervention: Nurse led follow up of outpatients compared with conventional medical follow up. Outcome measures: Quality of life, patients' satisfaction, general practitioners' satisfaction, survival, symptom-free survival, progression-free survival, use of resources, and comparison of costs. Results: Patient acceptability of nurse led follow up was high: 75% (203/271) of eligible patients consented to participate. Patients who received the intervention had less severe dyspnoea at 3 months (P=0.03) and had better scores for emotional functioning (P=0.03) and less peripheral neuropathy (P=0.05) at 12 months. Intervention group patients scored significantly better in most satisfaction subscales at 3, 6, and 12 months (P<0.01 for all subscales at 3 months). No significant differences in general practitioners' overall satisfaction were seen between the two groups. No differences were seen in survival or rates of objective progression, although nurses recorded progression of symptoms sooner than doctors (P=0.01). Intervention patients were more likely to die at home rather than in a hospital or hospice (P=0.04), attended fewer consultations with a hospital doctor during the first 3 months (P=0.004), had fewer radiographs during the first 6 months (P=0.04), and had more radiotherapy within the first 3 months (P=0.01). No other differences were seen between the two groups in terms of the use of resources. Conclusion: Nurse led follow up was acceptable to lung cancer patients and general practitioners and led to positive outcomes.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</pub><pmid>12433764</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmj.325.7373.1145</doi><tpages>3</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0959-8138 |
| ispartof | BMJ, 2002-11, Vol.325 (7373), p.1145-1147 |
| issn | 0959-8138 1468-5833 1756-1833 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_133453 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Aged Aged, 80 and over Cancer Care Facilities Clinical nursing research Cost-Benefit Analysis Death Disease-Free Survival Economic research Family Practice - economics Female Follow-Up Studies Hospital units Hospitalization - economics Humans Lung cancer Lung neoplasms Lung Neoplasms - economics Lung Neoplasms - nursing Male Medical research Medical specialists Middle Aged Nurses Patient Satisfaction Quality of Life Unit costs |
| title | Nurse led follow up and conventional medical follow up in management of patients with lung cancer: randomised trial |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T19%3A51%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Nurse%20led%20follow%20up%20and%20conventional%20medical%20follow%20up%20in%20management%20of%20patients%20with%20lung%20cancer:%20randomised%20trial&rft.jtitle=BMJ&rft.au=Moore,%20Sally&rft.date=2002-11-16&rft.volume=325&rft.issue=7373&rft.spage=1145&rft.epage=1147&rft.pages=1145-1147&rft.issn=0959-8138&rft.eissn=1468-5833&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmj.325.7373.1145&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E25452899%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1777757639&rft_id=info:pmid/12433764&rft_jstor_id=25452899&rfr_iscdi=true |