Clinic audit for long-term survivors of childhood cancer.

A systematic review of models of care for the follow‐up of childhood cancer survivors

“…Participants were largely convenience samples of patients already attending/recently referred to the clinics under evaluation [13][14][15][16][17], or in two cases patients who were not currently being followed-up for various reasons [11,12]. All participants were survivors of cancer diagnosed in childhood; where this definition was explicit the diagnosis had to have been made before the age of 16 or 17 years in most cases.…”

“…A total of eight papers were retained despite not meeting the study design inclusion criteria with the intention of reflecting the evidence base as it currently stands (Table I) [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. All but one of these papers were available as full publications; the remaining study was published only as an abstract reporting provisional results [11].…”

Children as Service Evaluators

“…These results are supported by the findings of three other studies. Eiser et al (1996) reported that parents were generally more positive about follow-up clinics for childhood cancer sufferers than the clients themselves; Kvist et al (1991) also reported differences between the patients' and parents' satisfaction with cancer treatment. Lewis et al (1988) reported differences between children's and parents' perceptions of bedside rounds particularly with respect to the emotional impact on the children.…”

“…The reasons given for consulting children directly suggest that the authors believe that many of the positive outcomes from the literature on adult client satisfaction may also accrue to children. These include, for example, encouraging attendance at appointments and ensuring compliance with treatment (Eiser et al, 1996, Simonian et al, 1993, Black, Sawyer & Fotheringham, 1995, Rifkin et al, 1988.…”

“…Thus, Eiser et al (1996) included questions regarding the practicalities of clinic attendance, understanding of the purpose of clinic visits and future preferences for the services. Kvist et al (1991) included questions about continuity of care, practical issues such as queuing and personal feelings of fear and loneliness.…”