We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study investigates the impact of primary care utilisation of a symptom-based head and neck cancer risk calculator (Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator version 2) in the post-coronavirus disease 2019 period on the number of primary care referrals and cancer diagnoses.
Methods
The number of referrals from April 2019 to August 2019 and from April 2020 to July 2020 (pre-calculator) was compared with the number from the period January 2021 to August 2022 (post-calculator) using the chi-square test. The patients’ characteristics, referral urgency, triage outcome, Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator version 2 score and cancer diagnosis were recorded.
Results
In total, 1110 referrals from the pre-calculator period were compared with 1559 from the post-calculator period. Patient characteristics were comparable for both cohorts. More patients were referred on the cancer pathway in the post-calculator cohort (pre-calculator patients 51.1 per cent vs post-calculator 64.0 per cent). The cancer diagnosis rate increased from 2.7 per cent in the pre-calculator cohort to 3.3 per cent in the post-calculator cohort. A lower rate of cancer diagnosis in the non-cancer pathway occurred in the cohort managed using the Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator version 2 (10 per cent vs 23 per cent, p = 0.10).
Conclusion
Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator version 2 demonstrated high sensitivity in cancer diagnosis. Further studies are required to improve the predictive strength of the calculator.
Digital health tools are increasingly being recognised as effective interventions in monitoring chronic health conditions. This systematic review addressed how digital health is currently utilised in patients with head and neck cancer as an adjunct to care.
Method
Studies of the development or evaluation of an eHealth, telemedicine or telemonitoring tool were eligible. A narrative synthesis was performed as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines.
Results
Twenty-nine studies of digital health tools in head and neck cancer were identified. Nine were randomised, controlled trials but most had concern of bias. Fourteen (48 per cent) of the interventions used multiple modes of delivery. The primary digital tool functions are symptom tracking and self-care, prehabilitation and rehabilitation, psychological support, and education, including decision aids. Most tools aimed to support patients during active cancer treatment.
Conclusion
There are a small number of digital health tools for head and neck cancer patients; however, there is a lack of well-designed randomised, controlled trials to demonstrate effectiveness.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.