
doi: 10.1111/ecc.13200
pmid: 31829480
Gastroesophageal cancer has high mortality, and continuous assessment of patient-reported data is salient for optimisation of supportive care. We aimed to evaluate our multidisciplinary concept with respect to patient-reported variables.At diagnosis and later during the treatment, three areas of patient-reported measures were evaluated: the given information and care, fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory [MFI-20]), dysphagia (Ogilvie dysphagia score) and weight loss.Of 130 outpatients, planned for a surgical procedure and given a contact nurse (CN), 106 responded. During treatment, 81% of the patients were satisfied with their CN. The given information was considered very good or good by >90% and easily understood. Half of the patients reported need for supportive care, which was rated good by 85%. All dimensions of the MFI-20 test, except mental fatigue, worsened during the treatment period. At diagnosis, 61% of the patients experienced eating problems, leading to 7% weight loss. Although dysphagia improved, weight loss reached 13% at the end of treatment.A multidisciplinary concept can be of value in giving appropriate and understandable information, leading to high satisfaction with the provided care. However, as fatigue and weight loss increased during the treatment period, patients need structured multidisciplinary support.
Male, Sweden, Esophageal Neoplasms, Access to Information, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Satisfaction, Stomach Neoplasms, Weight Loss, Humans, Female, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Deglutition Disorders, Fatigue, Quality of Health Care
Male, Sweden, Esophageal Neoplasms, Access to Information, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Satisfaction, Stomach Neoplasms, Weight Loss, Humans, Female, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Deglutition Disorders, Fatigue, Quality of Health Care
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
