• Louise Jones, Gail Fitzgerald, Baptiste Leurent, Jeffrey Round, Jane Eades, Sarah Davis, Faye Gishen, Amanda Holman, Katherine Hopkins, and Adrian Tookman.
• Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Unit, UCL Mental Health Sciences Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom. caroline.jones@ucl.ac.uk
• J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013 Sep 1;46(3):315-325.e3.

ContextTwo million people across the U.K. are living with cancer, often experienced as a long-term condition. They may have unmet needs after active treatment. Rehabilitation aims to address these needs, maximize psychological and physical function, and enable minimum dependency regardless of life expectancy.ObjectivesWe aimed to test, in a randomized controlled trial, the clinical and cost effectiveness of a rehabilitation intervention for patients with advanced, recurrent cancer.MethodsWe conducted a two-arm, wait-list control, randomized trial of a complex rehabilitation intervention delivered by a hospice-based multidisciplinary team vs. usual care for active, progressive, recurrent hematological and breast malignancies, with a follow-up at three months. The primary outcome was the psychological subscale of the Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS). Secondary outcomes were other domains of the SCNS, psychological status, continuity of care, quality of life, and resource use.ResultsForty-one participants were enrolled and 36 completed the trial. The primary outcome was significantly lower in the intervention arm (adjusted difference -16.8, 95% CI -28.34 to -5.3; P = 0.006). The SCNS physical and patient care subscales (-14.2, 95% CI -26.2 to -2.2; P = 0.02 and -7.4, 95% CI -13.7 to -1.1; P = 0.02, respectively) and self-reported health state (12.8, 95% CI 3.2 to 22.4; P = 0.01) also differed significantly. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £19,390 per quality-adjusted life year.ConclusionThis intervention significantly reduced the unmet needs of cancer survivors and it is likely that it is cost-effective. Despite small numbers, the main effect size was robust. We recommend implementation alongside evaluation in wider clinical settings and patient populations.Copyright © 2013 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

31 keywords...

hide…