Francken Kim F, Kooij Annelotte, Zwahlen Diana, Buffart Laurien M, Dekker Joost, van Laarhoven Hanneke W M, Braamse Annemarie M J, Müller Fabiola, Knoop Hans
Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Support Care Cancer. 2025 Aug 1;33(8):740. doi: 10.1007/s00520-025-09765-3.
While cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is prevalent among cancer patients posttreatment, the uptake of evidence-based interventions is low. This suggests resources are not well used, and patient needs go unaddressed. We investigated reasons for the discrepancy between the high prevalence of CRF and limited uptake of interventions, from the perspective of healthcare providers (HCPs), patients, and partners. We explored this from experiencing CRF, to needing care, seeking care, and use of care for CRF.
Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with patients (n = 16) who completed curative cancer treatment and experienced CRF, partners (n = 11), and HCPs (n = 29).
Thematic analysis revealed five themes explaining the low uptake of care. Only patients who experienced (1) interference due to fatigue developed a care need. Care seeking and referral to care were hampered as it was (2) unclear which HCP is responsible for assessment and management of posttreatment fatigue, and because of (3) a lack of awareness of interventions and referral pathways, (4) unhelpful expectations regarding fatigue and interventions, and (5) practical barriers influencing the initiation and continuation of care use.
CRF posttreatment is not routinely assessed, and it is unclear for patients and HCPs which HCP is responsible for its assessment and management. Knowledge of CRF and interventions is limited, leading to uncertainty about the treatability of CRF. To improve patients' access to care, responsibilities of HCPs need to be defined, knowledge needs to be improved, and CRF assessment and management must be integrated into standard clinical practice.
虽然癌症相关疲劳(CRF)在癌症患者治疗后很普遍,但基于证据的干预措施的采用率很低。这表明资源没有得到很好的利用,患者的需求也未得到满足。我们从医疗服务提供者(HCPs)、患者及其家属的角度,调查了CRF高患病率与干预措施采用率有限之间差异的原因。我们从经历CRF、需要护理、寻求护理以及使用CRF护理等方面进行了探讨。
对完成根治性癌症治疗并经历CRF的患者(n = 16)、家属(n = 11)和HCPs(n = 29)进行了半结构化访谈和焦点小组讨论。
主题分析揭示了五个解释护理采用率低的主题。只有经历过(1)因疲劳而产生干扰的患者才会产生护理需求。寻求护理和转诊受到阻碍,原因是(2)不清楚哪位HCP负责评估和管理治疗后疲劳,以及(3)对干预措施和转诊途径缺乏认识,(4)对疲劳和干预措施抱有不切实际的期望,以及(5)影响护理使用启动和持续的实际障碍。
治疗后CRF未得到常规评估,患者和HCPs不清楚哪位HCP负责其评估和管理。对CRF和干预措施的了解有限,导致对CRF可治疗性的不确定性。为了改善患者获得护理的机会,需要明确HCPs的职责,提高认识,并将CRF评估和管理纳入标准临床实践。