![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Purpose
Despite improving survival rates following colorectal cancer (CRC), post-treatment side-effects, such as bowel and sexual dysfunction, continue to impair survivors’ quality of life. These effects can persist, even years after completing primary treatment. This study aimed to explore the current assessment and management practices of clinical stakeholders, types of available interventions, and their perceived effectiveness.
Methods
An online survey was developed in consultation with CRC survivors and clinicians including colorectal surgeons and cancer nurses. Clinicians with experience in treating patients with CRC following primary treatment were invited to participate. The survey was launched online internationally, and responses were descriptively analyzed using SPSS® Statistics for Windows®.
Results
Of 114 respondents, 64.4% had ≥10 years of experience working with CRC survivors. There was heterogeneity of methods used to assess ongoing issues in survivors. The referral pathways for a given treatment side-effect were also variable. The main barriers to delivering ongoing care were increased wait times to see a new healthcare provider and limited financial and geographical access to healthcare services. Respondents (87.2%) identified that establishing clinical pathways would better facilitate ongoing care for CRC survivors and 61.3% recognized the potential for new interventions for certain treatment effects.
Conclusion
There is significant variability in the assessment and management of long-term post-treatment effects following treatment for CRC. A streamlined process, including practical advice and referral pathways for the management of CRC survivors’ ongoing care, is required to better equip clinicians to effectively manage post-treatment effects that significantly impact the quality of life of survivors.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Ethical approval
This study obtained ethics approval from The University of Sydney (Project Number: 2019/714).
Data availability statement
Aggregate survey data can be accessed by contacting the corresponding author.
Authors' contributions
AJ contributed to study conception, design considerations, built and launched the survey, analysed results and wrote the manuscript. KW contributed to study conception, design considerations, results interpretation and revision of the manuscript. RC, BK and JW contributed to results analysis and interpretation and revision of manuscript. EH contributed to results presentation and revision of manuscript. CR led the study conception and design, resolved queries, data interpretation, revision of the manuscript and supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.