Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development and feasibility assessment of telephone-delivered supportive care to improve outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer: pilot study of the CONNECT intervention

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Goals of work

This study aims to describe a pilot study of the feasibility, acceptability and likely impact of a nurse-delivered, telephone intervention to reduce unmet need and improve quality of life for surgical patients with colorectal cancer.

Materials and methods

The CONNECT intervention comprises five standardised calls over 6 months commencing on day 3 post-discharge. A prospective non-randomised control trial with patients who had surgery for colorectal cancer at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney between July and December 2006 was conducted. Patients completed a telephone interview with an independent researcher at 1, 3 and 6 months to assess study outcomes, including unmet need (Supportive Care Needs Survey), psychological distress and quality of life (FACT-C). Patients’ views of the intervention were ascertained.

Main results

Forty-one patients participated, 20 in the intervention period. Intervention calls were successfully completed with 85% or more of patients at each of the five time points. Mean call duration ranged from 14–19 min with the highest number of needs (27 for 20 patients) identified on day 3. Patients indicated that the timing of the calls was appropriate and the majority (85%) felt the number of calls was sufficient. There were promising trends in outcomes. For both patient groups, there were clinically meaningful improvements in FACT-C scores over time, with a larger improvement in the intervention group (20.4 points) than the control group (11.7).

Conclusions

The CONNECT intervention was found to be feasible and acceptable to patients. A larger randomised trial is underway to establish its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) & AACR (Australasian Association of Cancer Registries) (2007) Cancer in Australia: an overview, 2006. Cancer series no. 37. Cat. no. CAN 32.Canberra: AIHW

  2. Birgisson H, Pahlman L, Gunnarsson U, Glimelius B (2005) Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial Group. Adverse effects of preoperative radiation therapy for rectal cancer: long Term follow-up of the Swedish rectal cancer trial. J Clin Oncol 23:8697–8705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonevski B, Sanson Fisher R, Girgis A et al (2000) Evaluation of an instrument to assess the needs of patients with cancer. Cancer 88:217–225

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Breast Services Enhancement Program (2005) Learning from the past-informing the future: continuity and coordination of care-improving the ‘cancer journey’. Cancer and Palliative Care Programs Branch, Victorian Government Department of Human Services, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cella D (2006) The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT) measurement system: version 4. Elmhurst, USA

    Google Scholar 

  6. Christ G, Siegel K (1990) Monitoring the quality of life needs of cancer patients. Cancer 65:760–765

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clark MA, Plank LD, Hill GL (2000) Wound healing associated with severe surgical illness. World J Surg 24:648–654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Clinical Governance Unit: The National Colorectal Cancer Survey (2002) Australian clinical practice in 2000. National Cancer Control Initiative, Melbourne, pp 1–124

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dubay DA, Franz MG (2006) Acute wound healing: the biology of acute wound failure. Surg Clin N Am 83:463–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dunn J, Lynch B, Rinaldis M et al (2006) Dimensions of quality of life and psychosocial variables most salient to colorectal cancer patients. Psycho-Oncology 15:20–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Girgis A, Boyes A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Burrows S (2000) Perceived needs of women diagnosed with breast cancer: rural versus urban location. Aust N Z J Public Health 24:166–173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harrison JD, Young JM, Price MA, Butow PN, Solomon MJ (2008) What are the unmet supportive care needs of people with cancer? A systematic review. Support Care Cancer . doi:10.1007/s00520-009-0615-5

    Google Scholar 

  13. Howell DM, Sussman J, Wiernikowski J, Pyette N, Bainbridge D, O’Brien M, Whelan T (2008) A mixed-method evaluation of nurse-led community-based supportive cancer care. Support Care Cancer . doi:10.1007/s00520-008-0416-2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Leventhal H, Nerenz DR, Steele DJ (1984) Illness representations and coping with health threats. In: Baum A, Taylor SE, Singer JE (eds) Handbook of psychology and health, vol 4. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 219–252

    Google Scholar 

  15. Macvean ML, White VM, Pratt S, Grogan S, Sanson-Fisher R (2007) Reducing the unmet needs of patients with colorectal cancer: a feasibility study of The Pathfinder Volunteer Program. Support Care Cancer 15:293–299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marijnen C, van de Velde CJ, Putter H et al (2005) Impact of short-term preoperative radiotherapy on health-related quality of life and sexually functioning in primary rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:1847–1858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McElduff P, Boyes A, Zucca A, Girgis A (2004) The supportive care needs survey: a guide to administration, scoring and analysis. Centre for Health Research & Psycho-Oncology, Newcastle

    Google Scholar 

  18. McIllMurray MB (2001) The psychosocial needs of cancer patients: findings from an observational study. Eu J Cancer Care 10:261–269

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Osse BHP, Vernooij-Dassen MJFJ, Schade E, Grol RPTM (2005) The problems experienced by patients with cancer and their needs for palliative care. Support Care Cancer 13:722–732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pringle W, Swan E (2001) Continuing care after discharge from hospital for stoma patients. Br J Nurs 10:1275–1288

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Roth AJ, Kornblith AB, Batel-Copel L et al (2002) Rapid screening for psychologic distress in men with prostate carcinoma: a pilot study. Cancer 1998:1904–1908

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sanson-Fisher R, Girgis A, Boyes A, Boneveski B, Burton L, Cook P (2000) The unmet supportive care needs of patients with cancer. Cancer 88:225–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Siegel K, Mesagno FP, Karus DG, Christ G (1992) Reducing the prevalence of unmet needs for concrete services of patients with cancer. Cancer 69:1873–1883

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Skilbeck J, Seymour J (2002) Meeting complex needs: an analysis of Macmillan nurses’ work with patients. Int J Palliat Nurs 8:574

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ward WL, Hahn EA, Mo F et al (1999) Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-colorectal (FACT-C) quality of life instrument. Qual Life Res 8:181–195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yost KJ, Cella D, Chawla A et al (2005) Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution- and anchor-based methods. J Clin Epidemiol 58:1241–1251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Rebecca Dennis was funded through a Health Services Research Programme Grant from the Cancer Institute NSW.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Surgical Outcomes Research Centre, University of Sydney and Sydney South West Area Health Service, PO Box M157, Missenden Rd, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia

    Jane Young, James Harrison, Michael Solomon, Phyllis Butow, Rebecca Dennis & Daine Robson

  2. School of Public Health, University of Sydney, A27, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Jane Young, James Harrison & Rebecca Dennis

  3. Discipline of Surgery, University of Sydney, DO5, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Michael Solomon

  4. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Rd, Sydney, Australia

    Michael Solomon & Sally Auld

  5. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision Making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, A18, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Phyllis Butow

  6. Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, PO Box M157, Missenden Road, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia

    Jane Young

Authors
  1. Jane Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Solomon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Phyllis Butow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rebecca Dennis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daine Robson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sally Auld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jane Young.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Young, J., Harrison, J., Solomon, M. et al. Development and feasibility assessment of telephone-delivered supportive care to improve outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer: pilot study of the CONNECT intervention. Support Care Cancer 18, 461–470 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-009-0689-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-009-0689-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation