JCO global oncology · 2026
Virtual Versus In-Person Visits in Prostate Cancer: Communication and Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Prospective Observational Study in Jordan.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abaza Haneen, Alzibdeh Abdulla, Khanfar Alaa, Al-Ibraheem Akram, Khader Jamal, Al-Sayed Muna, Almousa Abdelatif, Mohamad Issa, Abuhijla Fawzi, Abdel-Razeq Hikmat, Al-Omari Amal, Abu-Hijlih Ramiz
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Virtual follow-up visits have emerged as an alternative to in-person visits for cancer survivorship care, offering potential advantages in accessibility and convenience. Evidence supporting this approach, particularly from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, remains limited. This study compares virtual and in-person follow-up visits among patients withprostate cancer (PCa) after definitive radiotherapy.
METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), Jordan, using two validated Arabic questionnaires: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Communication Module (EORTC QLQ-COMU26) to assess patient-provider communication quality, and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP) to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Associations between visit types and patient age, clinic day, distance from hospital, and transportation support were examined.
RESULTS: A total of 248 patients were included, with 118 (48.0%) seen virtually and 130 (52.0%) in person. In-person visits were more common among those younger than 70 years (P = .001), those seen on weekdays (P < .001), as well as those living closer to the hospital or with transportation support (P < .001). Virtual visits demonstrated significantly higher communication scores across all EORTC QLQ-COMU26 domains (P < .001). No significant difference in HRQoL was observed between groups based on total EPIC-CP score (P = .403).
CONCLUSION: Virtual follow-up visits provided comparable HRQoL outcomes and significantly better communication quality compared with in-person visits. These findings support the value of telemedicine as a patient-centered, cost-effective, and resource-efficient model for follow-up care in PCa, especially when logistical or economic barriers to in-person visits exist.
METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), Jordan, using two validated Arabic questionnaires: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Communication Module (EORTC QLQ-COMU26) to assess patient-provider communication quality, and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP) to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Associations between visit types and patient age, clinic day, distance from hospital, and transportation support were examined.
RESULTS: A total of 248 patients were included, with 118 (48.0%) seen virtually and 130 (52.0%) in person. In-person visits were more common among those younger than 70 years (P = .001), those seen on weekdays (P < .001), as well as those living closer to the hospital or with transportation support (P < .001). Virtual visits demonstrated significantly higher communication scores across all EORTC QLQ-COMU26 domains (P < .001). No significant difference in HRQoL was observed between groups based on total EPIC-CP score (P = .403).
CONCLUSION: Virtual follow-up visits provided comparable HRQoL outcomes and significantly better communication quality compared with in-person visits. These findings support the value of telemedicine as a patient-centered, cost-effective, and resource-efficient model for follow-up care in PCa, especially when logistical or economic barriers to in-person visits exist.