Oncologists' perceived barriers to an expanded role for primary care in breast cancer survivorship care

Acceptability of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A qualitative evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Facilitators to implement shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice include mechanisms to allow the oncologist to continue overseeing the care of their patient, two-way information sharing and clear follow-up protocols for general practitioners (GPs). This paper aimed to evaluate patients, GPs and radiation oncologists (ROs) acceptance of a shared care intervention.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted pre- and post intervention with patients that were 3 years post radiotherapy treatment for breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, their RO, and their GP. Inductive and deductive thematical analysis was employed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two participants were interviewed (19 patients, 9 GPs, and 4 ROs). Pre intervention, there was support for GPs to play a greater role in cancer follow-up care, however, patients were concerned about the GPs cancer-specific skills. Patients, GPs and ROs were concerned about increasing the GPs workload. Post intervention, participants were satisfied that the GPs had specific skills and that the impact on GP workload was comparable to writing a referral. However, GPs expressed concern about remuneration. GPs and ROs felt the model provided patient choice and were suitable for low-risk, stable patients around 2-3 years post treatment. Patients emphasised that they trusted their RO to advise them on the most appropriate follow-up model suited to their individual situation. The overall acceptance of shared care depended on successful health technology to connect the GP and RO. There were no differences in patient acceptance between rural, regional, and cancer types. ROs presented differences in acceptance for the different cancer types, with breast cancer strongly supported.

CONCLUSION

Patients, GPs and ROs felt this shared cancer follow-up model of care was acceptable, but only if the RO remained directly involved and the health technology worked. There is a need to review funding and advocate for health technology advances to support integration.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients treated with curative radiotherapy for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, their RO and their GPs were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed.

Using simulation to enhance primary care sexual health services for breast cancer survivors: a feasibility study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of a virtual simulation game (VSG) to improve primary care sexual health services for breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

We developed a VSG to help primary care providers (PCPs) address sexual health disturbances among breast cancer survivors. We used a pretest-posttest design with a series of validated tools to assess the feasibility and perceived impact of the  VGS, including an open-ended question about participants' perceptions. Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics and qualitative data through an inductive content analysis approach.

RESULTS

Of the 60 participants, the majority were nurse practitioner students (n = 26; 43.3%), female (n = 48; 80%), and worked full-time (n = 35; 58.3%). Participants perceived the VSG as feasible and potentially effective. The intervention elicited an improvement in PCPs' perception of knowledge between pretest and posttest surveys (z =  - 1.998, p = 0.046). Professional background and previous exposure to sexual health training were predictors of knowledge perception. Participants described the intervention as an engaging educational strategy where they felt safe to make mistakes and learn from that.

CONCLUSIONS

VSGs can be a potentially effective educational approach for PCPs. Our findings indicate that despite being an engaging interactive strategy, VSG interventions should be tailored for each professional group.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

This intervention has potential to improve the knowledge and practice of PCPs related to breast cancer follow-up care to support comprehensive care for survivors, resulting in a better quality of life and patient outcomes.

Current status of and future perspectives on care for cancer survivors in China

Cancer is currently a major public health issue faced by countries around the world. With the progress of medical science and technology, the survival rate of cancer patients has increased significantly and the survival time has been effectively prolonged. How to provide quality and efficient care for the increasingly large group of cancer survivors with limited medical resources will be a key concern in the field of global public health in the future. Compared to developed countries, China's theoretical research and practical experience in care for cancer survivors are relatively limited and cannot meet the multi-faceted and diverse care needs of cancer patients. Based on the existing models of care worldwide, the current work reviews care for cancer survivors in China, it proposes considerations and suggestions for the creation of models of cancer care with Chinese characteristics in terms of optimizing top-level system design, enhancing institutional mechanisms, accelerating human resource development, and enhancing self-management and social support for patients.

Knowledge, Perception, and Skills, and Practices of Oncology Nurses in Cancer Survivorship Care: a Scoping Review

Survivorship care focuses on the well-being and quality of life of people affected by cancer. Oncology nurses play an essential role in survivorship care and must be equipped with the knowledge, skills, and competencies to provide survivorship care. This scoping review explored the existing literature on nurses' knowledge, perception, skills, or practices in delivering cancer survivorship care for adult cancer survivors. A scoping review was conducted through databases including PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycInfo in February 2022, following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Fourteen original research studies were included. Most of the studies were conducted in the USA and targeted oncology registered nurses. The studies primarily focused on the knowledge (n = 2, 14.3%), perception of responsibility (n = 8, 57.1%), and practice (n = 9, 64.3%) regarding survivorship care among oncology nurses, reporting widely varied results. Nine studies reported perceived skills, practice, and perceived barriers as the most used outcome measurements, while two assessed nurses' cancer survivorship care knowledge. The main gaps were discrepancies between oncology nurses' perceptions of responsibility and practices in delivering survivorship care. Lack of time, knowledge, and skills were reported as significant factors impeding survivorship care provision among oncology nurses. Limited research shows a gap in integrating knowledge into survivorship care practices among oncology nurses. Further studies are needed to develop educational programs on survivorship care to support the integration of survivorship care into oncology nurses' practice.

Artificial intelligence empowered Digital Health Technologies in Cancer Survivorship Care: a scoping review

Objective

The objectives of this systematic review are to describe features and specific application scenarios for current cancer survivorship care services of Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven digital health technologies (DHTs) and to explore the acceptance and briefly evaluate its feasibility in the application process.

Methods

Search for literatures published from 2010 to 2022 on sites MEDLINE, IEEE-Xplor, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus systematically. The types of literatures include original research, descriptive study, randomized controlled trial, pilot study, and feasible or acceptable study. The literatures above described current status and effectiveness of digital medical technologies based on AI and used in cancer survivorship care services. Additionally, we use QuADS quality assessment tool to evaluate the quality of literatures included in this review.

Results

43 studies that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed and qualitatively synthesized. The current status and results related to the application of AI-driven DHTs in cancer survivorship care were reviewed. Most of these studies were designed specifically for breast cancer survivors’ care and focused on the areas of recurrence or secondary cancer prediction, clinical decision support, cancer survivability prediction, population or treatment stratified, anti-cancer treatment-induced adverse reaction prediction, and so on. Applying AI-based DHTs to cancer survivors actually has shown some positive outcomes, including increased motivation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), reduce fatigue and pain levels, improved quality of life, and physical function. However, current research mostly explored the technology development and formation (testing) phases, with limited-scale population, and single-center trial. Therefore, it is not suitable to draw conclusions that the effectiveness of AI-based DHTs in supportive cancer care, as most of applications are still in the early stage of development and feasibility testing.

Conclusions

While digital therapies are promising in the care of cancer patients, more high-quality studies are still needed in the future to demonstrate the effectiveness of digital therapies in cancer care. Studies should explore how to develop uniform standards for measuring patient-related outcomes, ensure the scientific validity of research methods, and emphasize patient and health practitioner involvement in the development and use of technology.

Primary Care Physicians' Perspectives in Leading Breast Cancer Follow-Up Care

INTRODUCTION

Limited data exist on the barriers associated with transitioning breast cancer follow-up care to primary care physicians (PCPs). This study aimed to describe the current perspectives of PCPs in managing breast cancer follow-up.

METHOD

An online survey was distributed to PCPs in Toronto, ON, Canada. Questions examined PCPs' view of transitioning breast cancer follow-up care to their practices.

RESULTS

Of 800 PCPs invited, 126 responded (response rate: 15.7%). The types of practice models amongst respondents included blended capitation (42.9%), blended salary (27%), and fee-for-service (17.5%). Seventy-seven percent of respondents stated they provided follow-up care. Approximately half of the respondents stated they were somewhat comfortable providing follow-up care. PCP-led follow-up care was considered either very (49.2%) or somewhat appropriate (30.2%). When asked about financial remuneration, 43.7% of respondents stated it was somewhat important. The factors that influenced the feasibility of PCP-led follow-up care included receipt of a detailed follow-up care plan provided by the specialist after discharge (81%), the ability to re-refer to specialists rapidly (56.3%), and the ability to obtain regular updates of best practice changes (59.5%). The preferred means of educational updates included E-mail (40.5%), continuing medical education events (30.2%), and electronic medical records (19.8%). When the fee model was taken into consideration there was no significant difference in opinions regarding follow-up care.

CONCLUSIONS

Transitioning to a PCP-led model was supported by most of the PCPs who participated in this study. Their perspective on PCP-led follow up care and barriers associated with implementation of this model of care needs to be further explored with future studies that include larger sample size and a more diverse PCP population.

Partnering with general practitioners to optimize survivorship for patients with lymphoma: a phase II randomized controlled trial (the GOSPEL I trial)

BACKGROUND

Survival rates for lymphoma are highest amongst hematological malignancies. In 2019, it was estimated that over 6400 Australians were diagnosed with lymphoma, a group of hematological malignancies with a high 5-year survival rate of ~ 76%. There is an increased focus on the promotion of wellness in survivorship and active approaches to reducing morbidity related to treatment; however, current models of follow-up care heavily rely on hospital-based specialist-led care. Maximizing the potential of general practitioners (GPs) in the ongoing management of cancer is consistent with the national health reform principles and the Cancer Council Australia's Optimal Care Pathways. GPs are well positioned to provide guideline-based follow-up care and are more likely to address comorbidities and psychosocial issues and promote healthy lifestyle behaviors. This study aims to test the feasibility of the GOSPEL I intervention for implementing an integrated, shared care model in which cancer center specialists and community-based GPs collaborate to provide survivorship care for patients with lymphoma.

METHODS

We describe a protocol for a phase II, randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms and a 1:1 allocation. Sixty patients with Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma will be randomized to usual specialist-led follow-up care (as determined by the treating hematologists) or a shared follow-up care intervention (i.e., GOSPEL I). GOSPEL I is a nurse-enabled, pre-specified shared care pathway with follow-up responsibilities shared between cancer center specialists (i.e., hematologists and specialist cancer nurses) and GPs. Outcome measures assess feasibility as well as a range of patient-reported outcomes including health-related quality of life as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma, patient experience of care, symptom distress, comorbidity burden, dietary intake, physical activity behaviors, financial distress/interference, and satisfaction of care. Safety indicators including hospital admission and unscheduled lymphoma clinic visits as well as process outcomes such as intervention fidelity and economic indicators will be analyzed.

DISCUSSION

This trial is designed to explore the feasibility and acceptability of a new model of shared care for lymphoma survivors. Patient-reported outcomes as well as potential barriers to implementation will be analyzed to inform a larger definitive clinical trial testing the effects and implementation of a shared care model on health-related quality of life of lymphoma survivors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000594921 . Registered on 22 May 2020.

Implementing a nurse-enabled, integrated, shared-care model involving specialists and general practitioners in breast cancer post-treatment follow-up: a study protocol for a phase II randomised controlled trial (the EMINENT trial)

Background

Due to advances in early detection and cancer treatment, 5-year relative survival rates for early breast cancer surpass 90% in developed nations. There is increasing focus on promotion of wellness in survivorship and active approaches to reducing morbidity related to treatment; however, current models of follow-up care are heavily reliant on hospital-based specialist-led care. This study aims to test the feasibility of the EMINENT intervention for implementing an integrated, shared-care model involving both cancer centre specialists and community-based general practitioners for early breast cancer post-treatment follow-up.

Methods

We describe a protocol for a phase II, randomised controlled trial with two parallel arms and 1:1 allocation. A total of 60 patients with early-stage breast cancer will be randomised to usual, specialist-led, follow-up care (as determined by the treating surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists) or shared follow-up care intervention (i.e. EMINENT). EMINENT is a nurse-enabled, pre-specified shared-care pathway with follow-up responsibilities divided between cancer centre specialists (i.e. surgeons and oncologists) and general practitioners. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Breast Cancer. Secondary outcomes include patient experience, acceptance, and satisfaction of care; dietary, physical activity, and sedentary behaviours; financial toxicity; adherence; health resource utilisation; and adverse events.

Discussion

The trial is designed to identify the barriers to implementing a shared-care model for breast cancer survivors following treatment. Results of this study will inform a definitive trial testing the effects of shared-care model on health-related quality of life of breast cancer survivors, as well as its ability to alleviate the growing demands on the healthcare system.

Trial registration

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001594112. Registered on 19 November 2019

Development and evaluation of a bladder Cancer specific survivorship care plan by patients and clinical care providers: a multi-methods approach

BACKGROUND, CONTEXT AND PURPOSE

In spite of the mixed evidence for their impact, survivorship Care Plans (SCPs) are recommended to enhance quality of care for cancer survivors. Data on the feasibility of SCPs in bladder cancer (BC) is sparse. Using a mixed-methods approach, this study describes the iterative development, acceptability and feasibility of BC specific SCP (BC-SCP) in clinical settings.

METHODS

In Phase I, we developed the BC-SCP. In Phase II, we conducted four focus groups with 19 patients and 15 providers to examine its acceptability and usability challenges. Data analyses using the Atlas.ti program, informed refinement of the BC-SCP. In Phase III, we conducted feasibility testing of the refined BC-SCP with 18 providers from 12 health-centers. An encounter survey was completed after each assessment to examine the feasibility of the BC-SCP. Chi-square and Fisher Exact tests were used for comparative analyses.

RESULTS

During phase I, we observed high patient and provider acceptability of the BC-SCP and substantial engagement in improving its content, design, and structure. In Phase II, providers completed 59 BC-SCPs. Mean time for BC-SCP completion was 12.3 min. Providers reported that BC-SCP content was clear, did not hamper clinic flow and was readily completed with easy-to-access information. Comparative analyses to examine differences in SCP completion time by patient clinico-demographic characteristics and provider type revealed no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Our BC-SCP has clinical relevance, and can be used in an active practice setting. However, considerable progress will be necessary to achieve implementation of and sharing the BC-SCP with patients and care providers, particularly within the electronic medical record. In summary, BC-SCPs are essential to improve the follow up care of BC survivors. Clinical resources are required to ensure appropriate implementation of BC-SCPs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Study HUM00056082.

Healthcare professionals' perspectives of barriers and facilitators in implementing physical activity programmes delivered to cancer survivors in a shared-care model: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The positive impact of physical activity programmes has been recognised, but the current uptake is low. Authorities believe delivering these programmes in a shared-care model is a future perspective. The present study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators affecting physical activity programme implementation in a shared-care model delivered with the cooperation of all the types of healthcare professionals involved.

METHODS

Thirty-one individual interviews with primary healthcare professionals (PHPs) and four focus group interviews with 39 secondary healthcare professionals (SHPs) were undertaken. We used Grol and Flottorp's theoretical models to identify barriers and facilitators in six domains: (1) physical activity programmes, (2) patients, (3) healthcare professionals, (4) social setting, (5) organisation and (6) law and governance.

RESULTS

In the domain of physical activity programmes, those physical activity programmes that were non-tailored to the patients' needs impeded successful implementation. In the domain of healthcare professionals, the knowledge and skills pertaining to physical activity programmes and non-commitment of healthcare professionals impeded implementation. HCPs expressed their concerns about the negative influence of the patient's social network. Most barriers occurred in the domain of organisation. The PHPs and SHPs raised concerns about ineffective collaboration and networks between hospitals. Only the PHPs raised concerns about poor communication, indeterminate roles, and lack of collaboration with SHPs. Insufficient and unclear insurance coverage of physical activity programmes was a barrier in the domain of law and governance.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving the domain of organisation seems the most challenging because the collaboration, communication, networks, and interactive roles between the PHPs and SHPs are all inadequate. Survivor care plans, more use of health information technology, improved rehabilitation guidelines, and better networks might benefit implementing physical activity programmes.

Changes in primary care provider utilization by phase of care for women diagnosed with breast cancer: a CanIMPACT longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) have always played an important role in cancer diagnosis. There is increasing awareness of the importance of their role during treatment and survivorship. We examined changes in PCP utilization from pre-diagnosis to survival for women diagnosed with breast cancer, factors associated with being a high user of primary care, and variation across four Canadian provinces.

METHODS

The cohorts included women 18+ years of age diagnosed with stage I-III invasive breast cancer in years 2007-2012 in British Columbia (BC), Manitoba (MB), Ontario (ON), and Nova Scotia (NS) who had surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy and were alive 30+ months after diagnosis (N = 19,589). We compared the rate of PCP visits in each province across phases of care (pre-diagnosis, diagnosis, treatment, and survival years 1 to 4).

RESULTS

PCP use was greatest during treatment and decreased with each successive survival year in all provinces. The unadjusted difference in PCP use between treatment and pre-diagnosis was most pronounced in BC where PCP use was six times higher during treatment than pre-diagnosis. Factors associated with being a high user of primary care during treatment included comorbidity and being a high user of care pre-diagnosis in all provinces. These factors were also associated with being a higher user of care during diagnosis and survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to the traditional view that PCPs focus primarily on cancer prevention and early detection, we found that PCPs are involved in the care of women diagnosed with breast cancer across all phases of care.

Understanding Long-Term Cancer Survivors' Preferences for Ongoing Medical Care

BACKGROUND

Due to risk for treatment-related late effects and concerns about cancer recurrence, long-term cancer survivors have unique medical needs. Survivors' preferences for care may influence adherence and care utilization.

OBJECTIVE

To describe survivors' preferences for care and factors associated with preferred and actual care.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of participants in a longitudinal study using mailed questionnaires.

PARTICIPANTS

Survivors of ten common cancers (n = 2,107, mean years from diagnosis 8.9).

MAIN MEASURES

(1) Survivors' preferences for primary care physician (PCP) and oncologist responsibilities across four types of care: cancer follow-up, cancer screening, preventive health, and comorbid conditions. (2) Survivor-reported visits to PCPs and oncologists.

KEY RESULTS

The response rate was 42.1%. Most long-term survivors preferred PCPs and oncologists share care for cancer follow-up (63%) and subsequent screening (65%), while preferring PCP-led preventive health (77%) and comorbid condition (83%) care. Most survivors (88%) preferred oncologists involved in cancer follow-up care, but only 60% reported an oncologist visit in the previous 4 years, and 96% reported a PCP visit in the previous 4 years. In multivariable regressions, those with higher fear of cancer recurrence were less likely to prefer PCP-led cancer follow-up care (OR = 0.96, CI = 0.93-0.98), as did survivors with advanced cancer stage (OR = 0.56, CI = 0.39-0.79). Those with higher fear of recurrence (OR = 1.03, CI = 1.01-1.04) or who preferred oncologist-led cancer follow-up care (OR = 2.08, CI = 1.63-2.65) had greater odds of seeing an oncologist in the last 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Most cancer survivors preferred PCPs and oncologists share care for cancer follow-up and screening, yet many had not seen an oncologist recently. Survivors preferred PCP-led care for other preventive services and management of comorbid conditions. These findings highlight the important role PCPs could play in survivor care, suggesting the need for PCP-oriented education and health system policies that support high-quality PCP-led survivor care.

Moving beyond static survivorship care plans: A systems engineering approach to population health management for cancer survivors

The American cancer survivor population is ever-growing, with necessary follow-up primarily accomplished in a high-touch fashion-adding to unsustainability and fragmentation of care. Given the complexities of the health care system processes needed to support survivorship, engineering approaches may best address performance deficits and facilitate the provision of patient-centered care. Such collaboration between health care and engineering is recommended for redesigning health care delivery systems. By using Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS), a systems engineering model widely used to improve health care quality and delivery, the authors examine the work system to identify the barriers and facilitators to necessary care in the presence of a survivorship care plan and visit. Recommendations for future improvement include ensuring that care-planning processes are dynamic, clearly assigned, resilient, and integrated with electronic health record systems.

Practitioners' perspectives on community-based breast cancer survivorship care in Singapore: A focus group study

With the long-term goal of optimising the delivery of breast cancer survivorship care in Singapore, we conducted a qualitative study to gather in-depth descriptions from community practitioners (general practitioners and community pharmacists) about their perceptions of community-based cancer survivorship care in Singapore. Sixteen participants (11 general practitioners and five community pharmacists) participated in four structured focus group discussions between August and November 2016. The focus group discussions were analysed using deductive content analysis. The majority of community practitioners do not encounter breast cancer survivors in their clinical practices. Perceived barriers to community-based survivorship care include patients' lack of confidence in primary care, financial constraints and lack of empanelment. Most community practitioners concur that the success of community-based survivorship care largely depends on the co-operation and participation of survivors. Survivorship management via standardised care pathways is not fully advocated by practitioners. Survivorship care plans are identified as useful, but they should also incorporate a non-cancer-related medical history and medication list. Community practitioners in Singapore are eager to participate in the delivery of cancer survivorship care. Future studies should develop a community-based care model that involves community practitioners and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of such a care model. The current model of cancer survivorship in Singapore is not sustainable. Differences in healthcare ecosystems, cultures and resources available in an Asian context should be taken into consideration before designing a community-based cancer survivorship program in Singapore.

Oncologists' perceived barriers to an expanded role for primary care in breast cancer survivorship care

Concern exists about the sustainability of traditional, oncologist‐led models of breast cancer survivorship care. However, many oncologists are hesitant about deferring survivorship care to primary care providers (PCPs). Our objective was to examine oncologists' perceptions of the role PCPs play in breast cancer survivorship and the rationale underlying these perceptions. One‐on‐one interviews with medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists in Wisconsin were conducted (n = 35) and transcribed. Data analysis was performed using an inductive approach to content analysis. Oncologist‐perceived barriers included: PCP's level of experience with cancer care; Lack of PCP comfort in providing survivorship care; Existing demands on PCPs' time; Patient preference for oncology‐led survivorship care. Oncologists described familiarity and trust in individual PCPs as factors that could mitigate barriers and lead to increased PCP involvement in survivorship care. Although a number of perceived barriers to PCP participation in survivorship were identified by Wisconsin oncologists, our findings support the direction of ongoing initiatives to facilitate PCP involvement. Our findings also suggest that early PCP involvement in survivorship may increase PCP comfort and patients' trust in PCPs in this role. The identified barrier most challenging to address may be the limited capacity of the current primary care system to manage follow‐up for breast cancer survivors.