Comparison of Short Message Sending System and/or telephone notifications with usual patient follow- up method for continuing treatment of patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer after discharge

Abstract

Follow-up of bladder cancer patients after initial treatment based on a text message system can be helpful in encouraging patients to perform these steps in a timely manner. Frequent visits for many of these patients, especially in the first six months, are needed. Patients who appear to be in good general condition, often asymptomatic, may consider these visits unnecessary or forget them. The aim of the present study was to compare the two methods of follow-up Short Message Sending (SMS) and/or telephone versus usual follow-up to continue treatment in patients with non-invasive bladder cancer after discharge. Materials and Methods: A total of 50 cases were included in a cohort study and the target population including patients with non-muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder were evaluated in case and control groups. In the case group, patients were informed about the required time for each visit via SMS or telephone. In the control group, the usual method of informing, which included recommending the next visit at the time of each visit, is provided. The main outcome of interest was the presence or absence of delay in referrals. This delay was based on the total number of days of delay in referrals for control cystoscopy, intravesical BCG injections or cystoscopy examination after initial TURBT or other examinations such as urinary cytology and so on. The two groups were primarily compared in terms of this index. Results: In the study of referral for cystoscopy after treatment, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in non-referral (p=0.047); So that in the case group, 4 patients (16%) and in the control group, 10 patients (40%) did not refer for cystoscopy. Also, in the referral for BCG injection into the bladder, a statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in non-referral (p=0.034). In the case group, 3 patients (12%) and in the control group, 10 patients (40%) did not refer for BCG injection into the bladder.