• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Technology
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Technology
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Telehealth Survivorship Programs for Head and Neck Cancer Patients Shown Feasible and Cost-Effective

by Linda Kossoff  • May 13, 2024

  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the feasibility and cost of telehealth head and neck cancer (HNC) survivorship care?

You Might Also Like

  • Telehealth Care for HNC Cancer Survivors Compares Favorably to Standard Care in Certain Outcomes
  • Travel Distance Alone Not Associated with Worsened Two-Year Survival in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Head and Neck Cancer
  • Head Neck Cancer Associated with Significant Incremental Increases in Annual Healthcare Expenditures
  • Increased Antibiotic Prescribing Period Associated with Delayed Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis
Explore This Issue
May 2024

BOTTOM LINE

Although telehealth survivorship programs are feasible and cost-effective and associated with improved patient outcomes, they might not be ideal for every patient.

BACKGROUND: Patients with HNC face a plethora of long-term, treatment-related functional deficits, often requiring long-term support and management of symptoms. Survivorship care aims to address the medical, psychosocial, interpersonal, financial, and functional consequences of cancer and its therapies. This healthcare domain might particularly benefit from the integration of the telehealth model.

STUDY DESIGN: Literature review.

SETTING: Department of Otorhinolar-yngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

SYNOPSIS: Researchers identified feasibility studies on telehealth models for HNC survivorship care published between 2005 and 2021. Criteria included programs that provided specific and quantitative feasibility outcome measures. Thirty-eight studies were included for analysis. Primary and secondary outcomes were intervention feasibility (including enrollment, patient and provider satisfaction, adherence, and attrition) and cost-effectiveness, respectively. For the telehealth model, the patient enrollment average was 48.8%; weighted mean patient satisfaction rate 65.6%; average adherence rate 70.7%; and mean attrition rate 14.9%. Usability ratings were high at 94.6%. Studies with cost analysis (n=5) found telehealth models of care to result in a $642.30 savings per patient and reduced work time savings of seven days per visit, on average. Authors conclude that, although telehealth survivorship programs are feasible, cost-effective, and associated with improved outcomes, existing and persisting inequities in access and other barriers in use of technology among patients with cancer mean that they might not be ideal for every patient. They note the need for an evaluation system to understand such factors and to help inform clinicians. Study limitations included divergences in study design, methodology, type of intervention, and outcomes assessed that made it difficult to summarize findings.

CITATION: De Ravin E, Armache M, Campbell F, et al. Feasibility and cost of telehealth head and neck cancer survivorship care: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023;168:1312–1323.

Filed Under: Head and Neck, Head and Neck, Literature Reviews, Practice Focus Tagged With: Neck Cancer Survivors, telehealthIssue: May 2024

You Might Also Like:

  • Telehealth Care for HNC Cancer Survivors Compares Favorably to Standard Care in Certain Outcomes
  • Travel Distance Alone Not Associated with Worsened Two-Year Survival in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Head and Neck Cancer
  • Head Neck Cancer Associated with Significant Incremental Increases in Annual Healthcare Expenditures
  • Increased Antibiotic Prescribing Period Associated with Delayed Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

More and more medical trainees are taking dedicated, prolonged gap years. Did you?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Is the SLOR in Otolaryngology Residency Applications Contributing to Rural Disparities?
  • Applications Open for Resident Members of the ENTtoday Editorial Board
  • A Resident’s View of AI in Otolaryngology
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • Resident Pearls: Pediatric Otolaryngologists Share Tips for Safer, Smarter Tonsillectomies
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • Office Laryngoscopy Is Not Aerosol Generating When Evaluated by Optical Particle Sizer
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Empty Nose Syndrome: Physiological, Psychological, or Perhaps a Little of Both?
    • Top 10 LARY and LIO Articles of 2024
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?
    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment
    • Keeping Watch for Skin Cancers on the Head and Neck
    • Short-Term Efficacy of Biologics in Recalcitrant AFRS: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    • The Devaluation of Otolaryngology: An Evaluation of CMS’s Involvement in Physician Reimbursement
    • Embolized Middle Meningeal Artery as a Surgical Landmark in Infratemporal Fossa
    • Lord of the (Magnetic) Rings: Rigid Bronchoscopy for Aspirated Magnetic Foreign Bodies in Tertiary Bronchi
    • What Otolaryngologists Can Learn from Athletes

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2026 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939