Facilitators and barriers to shared primary and specialist cancer care: a systematic review

Patient and Provider Attitudes and Preferences Regarding Early Palliative Care Delivery for Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Prospective Survey

Early integrated palliative care (EIPC) for patients with advanced cancers requires the involvement of family doctors (FDs) and oncologists. We compared attitudes between patients and their providers regarding the delivery of EIPC. Patients with newly diagnosed incurable gastrointestinal (GI) cancer at a tertiary cancer centre in Ontario, Canada, were surveyed using a study-specific instrument regarding the importance of and preferences for accessing support across eight domains of palliative care. Physicians within the circle of care completed a parallel survey for each patient. The concordance between patient and physician responses was analyzed. A total of 66 patients were surveyed (median age 69, 35% female). All had an oncologist, 12% had a specialist palliative care provider (SPC), and 97% had an FD, but only 41% listed the FD as part of the care team. In total, 95 providers responded (oncologist = 68, FD = 21, SPC = 6; response rate 92%; 1-3 physician responses per patient). Disease management and physical concerns were most important to patients. Patients preferred to access care in these domains from oncologists or SPCs. For all other domains, most patients attributed primary responsibility to self or family rather than any healthcare provider. Thus, concordance was poor between patient and physician responses. Across most domains of palliative care, we found low agreement between cancer patients and their physicians regarding responsibilities for care, with FDs appearing to have limited involvement at this stage.

Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care: a scoping review

PURPOSE

This scoping review identifies and characterises reported barriers and facilitators to providing integrated cancer care reported in the international literature, and develops recommendations for clinical practice.

METHODS

This scoping review included literature published between 2009 and 2022 and describes the delivery of integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care sectors. Searches were conducted of an online database Ovid Medline and grey literature.

RESULTS

The review included thirty-two papers. Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care were identified in three core areas: (1) at an individual user level around patient-healthcare professional interactions, (2) at an organisational level, and (3) at a healthcare system level. The review findings identified a need for further training for primary care professionals on cancer care, clarity in the delineation of primary care and oncologist roles (i.e. who does what), effective communication and engagement between primary and secondary care, and the provision of protocols and guidelines for follow-up care in cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Information sharing and communication between primary and secondary care must improve to meet the increasing demand for support for people living with and beyond cancer. Delivering integrated pathways between primary and secondary care will yield improvements in patient outcomes and health economic costs.

Survivorship care in breast cancer: understanding implementation barriers through the lens of the Theoretical Domains Framework

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer survivorship guidelines with specific recommendations on managing long-term effects are available, but uptake in clinical practice remains low. Using the lens of the Theoretical Domains Framework, we aimed to understand key factors in guideline-concordant management of long-term effects to inform future implementation efforts in clinical practice contexts.

METHODS

As part of a broader survey of oncologists, a theory-guided questionnaire was developed. Oncologists were asked to report level of agreement with Theoretical Domains Framework-based statements, current usage and perceived value of survivorship resources, and frequency of managing long-term effects in routine care. Data analyses included psychometric assessment of the questionnaire, descriptive summaries of theoretical domains and survivorship resources, and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

In total, 217 oncologists completed the Theoretical Domains Framework-based questionnaire; 54% of oncologists reported "always or almost always" evaluating physical effects at routine survivorship appointments, while 34% did so for psychosocial effects. In regression models, Environmental Context and Resources was the only theoretical domain found to be statistically significantly associated with "always or almost always" evaluating both physical (odds ratio = 0.29, 95% confidence interval = 0.09 to 0.80) and psychosocial (odds ratio = 0.09, 95% confidence interval = 0.02 to 0.35) effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings support application of the Theoretical Domains Framework in understanding oncologists' behaviors and perceived barriers in managing long-term effects in breast cancer survivors. In future implementation efforts, this theory-informed approach can be used to target relevant domains and strategies focused on embedding guideline recommendations in the clinical context through structured resources and environmental supports.

SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months.

METHODS

The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p.

FINDINGS

150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients.

INTERPRETATION

SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors.

FUNDING

Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

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.

"We're trained to trust our patients": a qualitative study on the general practitioners' trust in patients for colorectal cancer shared care

BACKGROUND

In a therapeutic partnership, physicians rely on patients to describe their health conditions, join in shared decision-making, and engage with supported self-management activities. In shared care, the patient, primary care, and specialist services partner together using agreed processes and outputs for the patient to be placed at the centre of their care. However, few empirical studies have explored physicians' trust in patients and its implications for shared care models.

AIM

To explore trust in patients amongst general practitioners (GPs), and the impacts of trust on GPs' willingness to engage in new models of care, such as colorectal cancer shared care.

METHODS

GP participants were recruited through professional networks for semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were integrity checked, coded inductively, and themes developed iteratively.

RESULTS

Twenty-five interviews were analysed. Some GPs view trust as a responsibility of the physician and have a high propensity for trusting patients. For other GPs, trust in patients is developed over successive consultations based on patient characteristics such as honesty, reliability, and proactivity in self-care. GPs were more willing to engage in colorectal cancer shared care with patients with whom they have a developed, trusting relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Trust plays a significant role in the patient's access to shared care. The implementation of shared care should consider the relational dynamics between the patient and health care providers.

Patient preferences and comfort for cancer survivorship models of care: results of an online survey

PURPOSE

Workforce shortages will impact oncologists' ability to provide both active and survivorship care. While primary care provider (PCP) or survivorship clinic transition has been emphasized, there is little evidence regarding patient comfort.

METHODS

We developed an online survey in partnership with patient advocates to assess survivors' comfort with PCP or survivorship clinic care and distributed the survey to online, cancer-specific patient communities from June to August 2020. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 975 surveys were complete. Most respondents were women (91%) and had private insurance (65%). Thirty-six cancer types were reported. Ninety-three percent had a PCP. Twenty-four percent were comfortable seeing a PCP for survivorship care. Higher odds of comfort were seen among respondents who were Black or had stage 0 cancer; female sex was associated with lower odds. Fifty-five percent were comfortable with a survivorship clinic. Higher odds of comfort were seen with lymphoma or ovarian cancer, > 15 years from diagnosis, and non-US government insurance. Lower odds were seen with melanoma, advanced stage, Medicaid insurance, and one late effect. Preference for PCP care was 87% for general health, 32% for recurrence monitoring, and 37% for late effect management.

CONCLUSIONS

One quarter of cancer survivors were comfortable with PCP-led survivorship care and about half with a survivorship clinic. Most preferred oncologist care for recurrence monitoring and late-effect management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Patient preference and comfort should be considered when developing survivorship care models. Future efforts should focus on facilitating patient-centered transitions to non-oncologist care.

Enhancing speech-language pathology head and neck cancer service provision in rural Australia: Using a plan, do, study, act approach

PURPOSE

People with head and neck cancer (HNC) require ongoing speech-language pathology (SLP) services into the post-acute recovery phase of care. However, there are recognised service inequities/barriers for people from rural areas who are unable to access SLP services locally, necessitating travel to metropolitan centres. This study implemented strategies to assist rural speech-language pathologists to work to full scope of practice and support post-acute rehabilitation services for people with HNC.

METHOD

The study involved five SLP departments within a rural health referral network (one tertiary cancer centre, four rural sites). It involved a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) method, across two six month cycles, to achieve implementation of a model to support local SLP delivery of HNC care. Data collected included service activity, consumer feedback from people accessing local care, staff perceptions of the model and changes to local SLP service capabilities.

RESULT

Staff identified four objectives for change across the two PDSA cycles including resource development, upskilling/training and improving communication, and handover processes. In cycle 1, multiple resources were developed such as an eLearning program for training and skill development. In cycle 2, a pilot trial of a shared-care model was implemented, which successfully supported a transfer of care to local services for eight people with HNC. The majority of consumers accessing HNC care locally were satisfied with the service and would recommend future people with HNC receive similar care.

CONCLUSION

The PDSA process supported development and implementation of a model enabling local speech-language pathologists to offer post-acute care for people with HNC. This model helps rural people with HNC to access care closer to home by supporting rural clinicians to work to full scope of practice.

Patients' acceptance of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A population-based survey using the theoretical Framework of Acceptability

INTRODUCTION

International and national guidelines highlight the need for general practitioner involvement during and after active cancer treatment and throughout long-term follow-up care. This paper aimed to evaluate patients' acceptance of radiation oncology shared follow-up care using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted at two cancer care centres in the Illawarra Shoalhaven region of Australia. A sample of patients scheduled for a radiation oncology follow-up consultation in 2021 were sent a 32-point self-complete paper-based survey. Data were analysed using descriptive, parametric and non-parametric statistical analysis. This paper followed the Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS).

RESULTS

Of the 414 surveys returned (45% response rate), the acceptance for radiation oncology shared cancer follow-up care was high (80%). Patients treated with only radiotherapy were 1.7 times more likely to accept shared follow-up care than those treated with multiple modalities. Patients who preferred follow-up care for fewer than three years were 7.5 times more likely to accept shared care than those who preferred follow-up care for five years. Patients who travelled more than 20 minutes to their radiation oncologist or to the rural cancer centre were slightly more likely to accept shared care than those who travelled less than twenty minutes to the regional cancer centre. A high understanding of shared care (Intervention Coherence) and a positive feeling towards shared care (Affective Attitude) were significant predictive factors in accepting shared radiation oncology follow-up care.

CONCLUSION

Health services need to ensure patient preferences are considered to provide patient-centred cancer follow-up care. Shared cancer follow-up care implementation should start with patients who prefer a shorter follow-up period and understand the benefits of shared care. However, patients' involvement needs to be considered alongside other clinical risk profiles and organisational factors. Future qualitative research using the TFA constructs is warranted to inform clinical practice change.

Implementation of a Web-Based Communication System for Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists

Healthcare providers have reported challenges with coordinating care for patients with cancer. Digital technology tools have brought new possibilities for improving care coordination. A web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) was implemented in Ottawa, Canada for cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCPs). This study aimed to examine PCPs' experiences of implementing eOncoNote and how access to the system influenced communication between PCPs and cancer specialists. As part of a larger study, we collected and analyzed system usage data and administered an end-of-discussion survey to understand the perceived value of using eOncoNote. eOncoNote data were analyzed for 76 shared patients (33 patients receiving treatment and 43 patients in the survivorship phase). Thirty-nine percent of the PCPs responded to the cancer specialist's initial eOncoNote message and nearly all of those sent only one message. Forty-five percent of the PCPs completed the survey. Most PCPs reported no additional benefits of using eOncoNote and emphasized the need for electronic medical record (EMR) integration. Over half of the PCPs indicated that eOncoNote could be a helpful service if they had questions about a patient. Future research should examine opportunities for EMR integration and whether additional interventions could support communication between PCPs and cancer specialists.

Provider-To-Provider Communication About Care Transitions: Considering Different Health Technology Tools

ABSTRACT

Transitions in patient care require exchanges of information between providers. This period of transition presents a range of challenges, and inadequate transitions can have serious consequences for patients. Our objective was to understand providers' perspectives about patient care transitions, especially around communication between providers and the role of health information technology in provider-to-provider communication. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Deductive-dominant thematic analysis was used to allow categorization of data based on general themes derived from the interview guides, as well as identification of emergent themes. We characterized three main themes involving providers' perspectives about care transitions. Themes included communication challenges, communication preferences, and suggestions for improving the care transition processes. With respect to challenges around communication, providers highlighted four main concerns. These concerns included the existence of too many methods of communication, high volume of communication, challenges with involvement of multiple providers delivering longitudinal care, and difficulty communicating with providers outside the health system. Providers noted opportunities to improve transitions including improving standardization, enhancing the specialty to primary care transition process, and increasing communication back to the referring provider. Implementation and evaluation of these improvements could be considered by health systems to enhance care transitions.

Effectiveness and implementation of models of cancer survivorship care: an overview of systematic reviews

PURPOSE

To critically assess the effectiveness and implementation of different models of post-treatment cancer survivorship care compared to specialist-led models of survivorship care assessed in published systematic reviews.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2005 to May 2021. Systematic reviews that compared at least two models of cancer survivorship care were included. Article selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal were conducted independently by two authors. The models were evaluated according to cancer survivorship care domains, patient and caregiver experience, communication and decision-making, care coordination, quality of life, healthcare utilization, costs, and mortality. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were also synthesized.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews were included, capturing 53 primary studies. Effectiveness for managing survivors' physical and psychosocial outcomes was found to be no different across models. Nurse-led and primary care provider-led models may produce cost savings to cancer survivors and healthcare systems. Barriers to the implementation of different models of care included limited resources, communication, and care coordination, while facilitators included survivor engagement, planning, and flexible services.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence regarding the equivalent effectiveness of nurse-led, primary care-led, or shared care models, these models are not widely adopted, and evidence-based recommendations to guide implementation are required. Further research is needed to address effectiveness in understudied domains of care and outcomes and across different population groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Rather than aiming for an optimal "one-size fits all" model of survivorship care, applying the most appropriate model in distinct contexts can improve outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

Social Wellbeing in Cancer Survivorship: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Self-Reported Relationship Closeness and Ambivalence from a Community Sample

Improvements in early screening and treatment have contributed to the growth of the number of cancer survivors. Understanding and mitigating the adverse psychosocial, functional, and economic outcomes they experience is critical. Social wellbeing refers to the quality of the relationship with partners/spouses, children, or significant others. Close relationships contribute to quality of life and self-management; however, limited literature exists about social wellbeing during survivorship. This study examined positive and negative self-reported changes in a community sample of 505 cancer survivors. Fourteen items assessed changes in communication, closeness with partner/children, stability of the relationship, and caregiving burden. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted using a robust weighted least square procedure. Differences by sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were investigated. Respondents were mostly male, non-Hispanic white, and ≥4 years since diagnosis. Two factors, labeled Relationship Closeness and Ambivalence, emerged from the analysis. Women, younger survivors, individuals from minority groups, and those with lower income experienced greater negative changes in social wellbeing. Variations by treatment status, time since diagnosis, and institution were also reported. This contribution identifies groups of cancer survivors experiencing affected social wellbeing. Results emphasize the need to develop interventions sustaining the quality of interpersonal relationships to promote long-term outcomes.

Implementing a community-based shared care breast cancer survivorship model in Singapore: a qualitative study among primary care practitioners

Background

The adaptability of existing recommendations on shared care implementation to Asian settings is unknown. This qualitative study aims to elicit public- and private-sectors primary care practitioners’ (PCPs) perspectives on the sustainable implementation of a shared care model among breast cancer survivors in Singapore.

Methods

Purposive sampling was employed to engage 70 PCPs from SingHealth Polyclinics, National University Polyclinics, National Healthcare Group Polyclinics, and private practice. Eleven focus groups and six in-depth interviews were conducted between June to November 2018. All sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Guided by the RE-AIM framework, we performed deductive thematic analysis in QSR NVivo 12.

Results

PCPs identified low-risk breast cancer survivors who demonstrated clear acceptability of PCPs’ involvement in follow-up as suitable candidates for shared care. Engagement with institution stakeholders as early adopters is crucial with adequate support through PCP training, return pathways to oncologists, and survivorship care plans as communication tools. Implementation considerations differed across practices. Selection of participating PCPs could consider seniority and interest for public and private practice, respectively. Proposed adoption incentives included increased renumeration for private PCPs and work recognition for public PCPs. Public PCPs further proposed integrating shared care elements to their existing family medicine clinics.

Conclusions

PCPs perceived shared care favorably as it echoed principles of primary care to provide holistic and well-coordinated care. Contextual factors should be considered when adapting implementation recommendations to Asian settings like Singapore. With limited competitive pressure, the government is then pivotal in empowering primary care participation in survivorship shared care delivery.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01673-3.

The role of primary care in the cancer care continuum: a qualitative study of cancer survivors' experiences

OBJECTIVE

To explore how cancer survivors have experienced their contacts with primary care after being diagnosed with cancer, focusing on the integration between cancer specialist and primary care, and participants' views on what could make primary care services better at catering to the needs of cancer survivors.

DESIGN

A qualitative study in which data was collected through semi-structured digital focus group interviews and analyzed using a template analysis approach.

SETTING AND SUBJECTS

Adult residents of Skåne, Sweden, who had been diagnosed with and initiated treatment for either of five common cancer forms, recruited through patient advocacy groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A qualitative description of participants' experiences and perceptions as expressed in focus group interview data.

RESULTS

Most participants felt that primary care services had not played a significant role for them, despite patterns of both increased and unmet health needs. Insufficient coordination and communication with specialist cancer care, low availability, lacking personal continuity, low cancer competence and lacking commitment to cancer-related needs were presented as barriers to satisfactory primary care. A strengthened bond between cancer and primary care services, privileged access, and holistic perspectives were all suggested as measures to make primary care more suitable to cancer survivors' needs.

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that cancer survivors experience a range of issues that hinders primary care services from playing a productive role in the cancer care process. The results speak for a need for interventions to remove barriers to satisfactory primary care contacts in this group of patients.KEY POINTSThe growing number of cancer survivors highlights the role of primary care services in the cancer care continuum.Despite the presence of unmet needs, few cancer survivors felt that primary care services had been significant to their care.Survivors identified a number of barriers to satisfactory primary care, including lacking coordination and communication between cancer and primary care.Strengthened links between healthcare services, privileged access, and holistic perspectives were suggested to improve primary care delivery for cancer survivors.

Characteristics and general practice resource use of people with comorbid cancer and dementia in England: a retrospective cross-sectional study

Background

Cancer and dementia are common in older people and management of the conditions as comorbidities can be challenging, yet little is known about the size or characteristics of this group. We aimed to estimate the prevalence, characteristics and general practice resource usage of people living with both conditions in England.

Methods

Anonymised electronic healthcare records from 391 National Health Service general practices across England using the TPP SystmOne general practice system were obtained from ResearchOne. Data included demographic and clinical characteristics, and general practice healthcare useage (appointments, prescriptions, referrals and secondary care contacts) for people aged 50 and over with a cancer and/or dementia diagnosis consistent with the Quality and Outcomes Framework between 2005 and 2016. Multi-level negative binomial regression was used to analyse the association between having cancer and/or dementia and the number of general practice appointments.

Results

Data from 162,371 people with cancer and/or dementia were analysed; 3616 (2.2%) people were identified as having comorbid cancer and dementia. Of people with cancer, 3.1% also had dementia, rising to 7.5% (1 in 13 people) in those aged 75 and over. Fewer people with both conditions were female (50.7%) compared to those with dementia alone (65.6%) and those with comorbid cancer and dementia were older than those with cancer alone [mean ages 83 (sd = 7), 69 (sd = 12) respectively]. Those with both conditions were less likely to have lung cancer than those with cancer alone (7.5% vs. 10.3%) but more likely to have prostate cancer (20.9% vs. 15.8%). Additional comorbidities were more prevalent for those with both conditions than those with cancer or dementia alone (68.4% vs. 50.2% vs. 54.0%). In the year following the first record of either condition, people with cancer and dementia had 9% more general practice appointments (IRR:1.09, 95% CI:1.01–1.17) than those with cancer alone and 37% more appointments than those with dementia alone (IRR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.28–1.47).

Conclusions

A significant number of people are living with comorbid cancer and dementia in England. This group have additional comorbidity and higher general practice usage than those with cancer/dementia alone. The needs of this group should be considered in future general practice care planning and research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01882-w.

Stakeholders' perceptions of a community-based advanced nurse practitioner-led integrated oncology care model for adults receiving oral anti-cancer medication-A qualitative study

Oral anti-cancer medications (OAMs) are increasingly prescribed in oncology, and although administered at home, ongoing monitoring generally requires the patient to attend an acute hospital. With the requirement to provide safe yet convenient care and to increase hospital capacity, the potential exists to transition this cohort of patients to the community to be assessed by oncology health care professionals (HCPs). The onset of COVID-19 facilitated this planned transition.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to understand stakeholders' perceptions of a community-based advanced nurse practitioner (ANP)-led integrated OAM care model for adults.

METHODS

Qualitative data from interviews and focus groups were obtained from 33 individuals; either service users who attended ANP-led OAM clinics or stakeholders involved in OAM care. Data were subsequently analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified and included reflection on pre-COVID-19 system, role of ANP in current OAM care, importance of robust communication and infrastructural requirements for transition to an integrated OAM care model.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that patients and HCPs perceived the proposal positively. They identified the ANP as the appropriate HCP to care for this cohort and the importance of communication and strategic planning for transitioning this model of care to the community setting.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN10401455.

Factors influencing the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The increasing incidence of cancer, coupled with improved survivorship, has increased demand for cancer follow-up care and the need to find alternative models of care. Shared cancer follow-up care in general practice is a safe option in terms of quality of life and cancer recurrence; however, there are barriers to translating this into practice. This review aimed to identify factors that influence the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice.

METHODS

Systematic review. Seven electronic databases: MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, APA Psychinfo, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition and Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, were searched for published papers between January 1999 and December 2021. The narrative review included papers if they were available in full-text, English, peer-reviewed and focused on shared cancer follow-up care.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight papers were included in the final review. Five main themes emerged: (1) reciprocal clinical information sharing is needed between oncologists and general practitioners, and needs to be timely and relevant; (2) responsibility of care should be shared with the oncologist overseeing care; (3) general practitioners skills and knowledge to provide cancer follow-up care; (4) need for clinical management guidelines and rapid referral to support general practitioners to provide shared follow-up care and (5) continuity of care and satisfaction of care is vital for shared care.

CONCLUSION

The acceptability of shared cancer follow-up care is increasing. Several barriers still exist to translating this into practice. Work is required to develop a shared-care model that can support general practitioners, while the oncologist can oversee the care and implement two-way communication between general and oncologists' clinics. The move towards integrating electronic healthcare records and web-based platforms for information exchange provides a promise to the timely exchange of information.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020191538.

Effectiveness of educational videos on patient's preparation for diagnostic procedures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

•

Patients’ anxiety and unfamiliarity are barriers to undergoing diagnostic procedures.

•

Studies found educational videos more effective than other forms of information.

•

Educational videos minimise anxiety and improve patient satisfaction.

•

Educational videos enable medical procedures best practices.

Although diagnostic procedures are crucial for secondary prevention and patient disease control, they often trigger fear and anxiety. These reactions highlight the need to adopt effective interventions to improve patients’ experience and satisfaction. Recently, educational videos have been employed in preparing diagnostic procedures; however, there is no integrated understanding of their effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of educational videos on patients’ anxiety and satisfaction regarding preparation for diagnostic procedures. Three scientific databases (PubMed; Web of Science, Scopus), were used in this systematic review. Studies about educational videos as a form of preparation for patients undergoing diagnostic procedures published between 2000 and 2021 were included. A meta-analysis was also conducted. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review, and seven were included in the meta-analysis. Nine studies of the total sample were about vascular procedures and seven studies about other medical image procedures. Of the fourteen studies that evaluated the use of educational videos on patients’ anxiety, nine proved to reduce it significantly. Of the thirteen studies that evaluated satisfaction, seven showed a significant increase in the experimental group. Studies included in the meta-analysis show that educational video patient groups had lower anxiety levels than the control groups after the procedure. Although future studies are required, the results suggest that educational videos effectively prepare patients for diagnostic procedures, improving care quality.

Improved models of care for cancer survivors

The number of survivors of cancer is increasing substantially. Current models of care are unsustainable and fail to address the many unmet needs of survivors of cancer. Numerous trials have investigated alternate models of care, including models led by primary-care providers, care shared between oncology specialists and primary-care providers, and care led by oncology nurses. These alternate models appear to be at least as effective as specialist-led care and are applicable to many survivors of cancer. Choosing the most appropriate care model for each patient depends on patient-level factors (such as risk of longer-term effects, late effects, individual desire, and capacity to self-manage), local services, and health-care policy. Wider implementation of alternative models requires appropriate support for non-oncologist care providers and endorsement of these models by cancer teams with their patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven some changes in practice that are more patient-centred and should continue. Improved models should shift from a predominant focus on detection of cancer recurrence and seek to improve the quality of life, functional outcomes, experience, and survival of survivors of cancer, reduce the risk of recurrence and new cancers, improve the management of comorbidities, and reduce costs to patients and payers. This Series paper focuses primarily on high-income countries, where most data have been derived. However, future research should consider the applicability of these models in a wider range of health-care settings and for a wider range of cancers.

Healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

General practice plays an important role in cancer trajectories, and cancer patients request the continuous involvement of general practice. The objective of this scoping review was to identify healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS

A scoping review of the literature published in Danish or English from 2010 to 2020 was conducted. Data was collected using identified keywords and indexed terms in several databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EBSCO CINAHL, Scopus, and ProQuest), contacting key experts, searching through reference lists, and reports from selected health political, research- and interest organizations' websites.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We identified healthcare practices in cancer trajectories that increase quality care. Identified healthcare practices were grouped into four contextual domains and allocated to defined phases in the cancer trajectory. The results are presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

RESULTS

A total of 45 peer-reviewed and six non-peer-reviewed articles and reports were included. Quality of care increases in all phases of the cancer trajectory when GPs listen carefully to the full story and use action plans. After diagnosis, quality of care increases when GPs and practice staff have a proactive care approach, act as interpreters of diagnosis, treatment options, and its consequences, and engage in care coordination with specialists in secondary care involving the patient.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective. The results support general practice in investigating own healthcare practices and identifying possibilities for quality improvement.KEY POINTSIdentified healthcare practices in general practice that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories:Listen carefully to the full storyUse action plans and time-out-consultationsPlan and provide proactive careAct as an interpreter of diagnosis, treatment options, and its consequences for the patientCoordinate care with specialists, patients, and caregivers with mutual respectIdentified barriers for quality of care in cancer trajectories are:Time constraints in consultationsLimited accessibility for patients and caregiversHealth practices to increase the quality of care should be effective, safe, people-centered, timely, equitable, integrated, and efficient. These distinctions of quality of care, support general practice in investigating and improving quality of care in cancer trajectories.

Workforce Caring for Cancer Survivors in the United States: Estimates and Projections of Utilization

BACKGROUND

This study aims to quantify the extent and diversity of the cancer care workforce, beyond medical oncologists, to inform future demand, as the number of cancer survivors is expected to grow in the US.

METHODS

SEER-Medicare data was used to evaluate healthcare utilization of cancer survivors diagnosed between 2000-2014 and enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Parts A and B and 65 years or older in 2008-2015. We calculated percentage of cancer survivors who saw each clinician specialty and their average annual number of visits in each phase of care. We projected the national number of individuals receiving care and number of annual visits by clinician specialty and phase of care through 2040.

RESULTS

Cancer survivors had higher care utilization in the first year after diagnosis and last year of life phases. During the initial year after cancer diagnosis, most survivors were seen for cancer-related care by a medical oncologist (59.1%), primary care provider (55.9%) and/or other cancer-treating physicians (42.2%). The percentage of survivors with cancer-related visits to each specialty declined after the first year after diagnosis, plateauing after year 6-7. However, at 10 or more years after diagnosis, about 20% of cancer survivors had visits to medical oncologists and an average of 4 visits a year.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer survivors had higher care utilization in the first year after diagnosis and last year of life. High levels of care utilization across specialty in all phases of care has important implications for models of survivorship care coordination and workforce planning.

Cancer Survivors, Oncology, and Primary Care Perspectives on Survivorship Care: An Integrative Review

Purpose:

Evidence-based models of cancer survivorship care are lacking. Such models should take into account the perspectives of all stakeholders. The purpose of this integrative review is to examine the current state of the literature on cancer survivorship care from the cancer survivor, the oncology care team, and the primary care team perspectives.

Methods:

Using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we conducted a literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases to identify relevant articles on the stakeholders’ perspectives on cancer survivorship care published between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed and abstracted eligible articles to synthesize findings.

Results:

A total of 21 studies were included in the review. Barriers to the receipt and provision of cancer survivorship care quality included challenges with communication, cancer care delivery, and knowledge.

Conclusion:

Persistent stakeholder-identified barriers continue to hinder the provision of quality cancer survivorship care. Improved communication, delivery of care, knowledge/information, and resources are needed to improve the quality of survivorship care. Novel models of cancer survivorship care that address the needs of survivors, oncology teams, and PCPs are needed.

Current practice patterns and gaps in guideline-concordant breast cancer survivorship care

PURPOSE

Breast cancer-specific survivorship care guidelines for the more than 3.8 million survivors in the U.S. are available, but implementation in clinical practice remains challenging. We examined current practice patterns and factors associated with guideline-concordant survivorship care among oncologists.

METHODS

A national sample of medical oncologists, recruited using two databases, participated in a survey focused on practice patterns for breast cancer survivorship care. A "survivorship care composite score" was calculated for each respondent based on provision of services recommended in the survivorship guidelines. Descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression analyses examined associations between physician and practice characteristics and composite scores.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 217 medical oncologists, with an overall response rate of 17.9% and eligibility rate of 56.9% for those who responded. Oncologists reported high engagement in evaluation of disease recurrence (78%). Performed less frequently were the provision of survivorship care plans (46%), assessment of psychosocial long-term and late effects (34%), and screening for subsequent cancers (34%). Lack of survivorship care training (p = 0.038) and not routinely informing patients about potential late effects (p = 0.003) were significantly associated with poorer survivorship care composite scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the availability of disease-specific survivorship care guidelines, adherence to their recommendations in clinical practice is suboptimal. Survey results identified key gaps in survivorship care for breast cancer survivors, particularly related to subsequent primary cancers and psychosocial long-term and late effects.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Improving the delivery of comprehensive survivorship care for the growing population of breast cancer survivors is a high priority. Disease-specific clinical guidelines for cancer survivorship provide valuable recommendations, but innovative strategies are needed to integrate them into the care of long-term breast cancer survivors.

Understanding the Attitudes and Beliefs of Oncologists Regarding the Transitioning and Sharing of Survivorship Care

Transitioning survivorship care from oncologists to primary care physicians (PCPs) is a reasonable alternative to oncologist-led care. This study assessed oncologists’ attitudes and beliefs regarding sharing/transitioning survivorship care. A prospective survey of oncologists within a regional cancer program assessing self-reported barriers and facilitators to sharing/transitioning survivorship care was disseminated. In total, 63% (n = 39) of surveyed oncologists responded. Patient preference (89%) and anxiety (84%) are key to transition of care decisions; reduced remuneration (95%) and fewer longitudinal relationships (63%) do not contribute. Oncologists agreed that more patients could be shared/transitioned. Barriers include treatment-related toxicities (82% agree), tumor-specific factors (60–90% agree) and perception of PCP willingness to participate in survivorship care (47% agree). Oncologists appear willing to share/transition more survivors to PCPs, though barriers exist that warrant further study. Understanding these issues is critical to developing policies supporting comprehensive survivorship care models that address both cancer and non-cancer health needs. The demonstrated feasibility of this project warrants a larger-scale survey of oncologists with respect to the transition of survivorship care to PCPs, to further inform effective interventions to support high-quality survivorship care.

Information needs and preferences among rural cancer survivors in Queensland, Australia: a qualitative examination

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to understand how cancer survivors in rural Queensland seek and receive information, as well as their preferences regarding the content and delivery of health-related information.

METHODS

This study explored cancer survivors' experiences in seeking and comprehending health information using a qualitative descriptive approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 participants. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Two major themes and six sub-themes were identified including 1) information content and gaps - a) information about diagnosis and treatment, b) survivorship information gaps and c) practical support needs and 2) delivery and acceptance of information - a) sources of information, b) personalised information needs and c) information seeking or avoidance. Findings suggested that health information provision was inconsistent; survivors' attitudes towards seeking information varied greatly; and survivors' had difficulty processing information due to emotional distress.

CONCLUSION

The role of the health professional is critical in providing information and support to rural cancer survivors. Information provided should be tailored to meet the needs and preferences of individuals taking into consideration demographic factors and attitudes. Implications for public health: The current findings imply that quality information provision after cancer treatment would facilitate improvements in satisfaction among rural cancer survivors.

Supportive Care Interventions for People With Cancer Assisted by Digital Technology: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although relatively new, digital health interventions are demonstrating rapid growth because of their ability to facilitate access and overcome issues of location, time, health status, and most recently, the impact of a major pandemic. With the increased uptake of digital technologies, digital health has the potential to improve the provision of supportive cancer care.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to evaluate digital health interventions for supportive cancer care.

METHODS

Published literature between 2000 and 2020 was systematically searched in MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Eligible publications were randomized controlled trials of clinician-led digital health interventions to support adult cancer patients. The interventions included were determined by applying a digital health conceptual model. Studies were appraised for quality using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

Twenty randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the analysis. Interventions varied by duration, frequency, degree of technology use, and applied outcome measures. Interventions targeting a single tumor stream, predominantly breast cancer, and studies involving the implementation of remote symptom monitoring have dominated the results. In most studies, digital intervention resulted in significant positive outcomes in patient-reported symptoms, levels of fatigue and pain, health-related quality of life, functional capacity, and depression levels compared with the control.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital health interventions are helpful and effective for supportive care of patients with cancer. There is a need for high-quality research. Future endeavors could focus on the use of valid, standardized outcome measures, maintenance of methodological rigor, and strategies to improve patient and health professional engagement in the design and delivery of supportive digital health interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020149730; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=149730.

Future care for long-term cancer survivors: towards a new model

Purpose

The increase in the prevalence "long-term cancer survivor” (LCS) patients is expected to increase the cost of LCS care. The aim of this study was to obtain information that would allow to optimise the current model of health management in Spain to adapt it to one of efficient LCS patient care.

Methods

This qualitative study was carried out using Delphi methodology. An advisory committee defined the criteria for participation, select the panel of experts, prepare the questionnaire, interpret the results and draft the final report.

Results

232 people took part in the study (48 oncologists). Absolute consensus was reached in three of the proposed sections: oncological epidemiology, training of health professionals and ICT functions.

Conclusion

The role of primary care in the clinical management of LCS patients needs to be upgraded, coordination with the oncologist and hospital care is essential. The funding model needs to be adapted to determine the funding conditions for new drugs and technologies.

The Interplay between Housing Environmental Attributes and Design Exposures and Psychoneuroimmunology Profile-An Exploratory Review and Analysis Paper in the Cancer Survivors' Mental Health Morbidity Context

Adult cancer survivors have an increased prevalence of mental health comorbidities and other adverse late-effects interdependent with mental illness outcomes compared with the general population. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) heralds an era of renewed call for actions to identify sustainable modalities to facilitate the constructs of cancer survivorship care and health care delivery through physiological supportive domestic spaces. Building on the concept of therapeutic architecture, psychoneuroimmunology (PNI) indicators-with the central role in low-grade systemic inflammation-are associated with major psychiatric disorders and late effects of post-cancer treatment. Immune disturbances might mediate the effects of environmental determinants on behaviour and mental disorders. Whilst attention is paid to the non-objective measurements for examining the home environmental domains and mental health outcomes, little is gathered about the multidimensional effects on physiological responses. This exploratory review presents a first analysis of how addressing the PNI outcomes serves as a catalyst for therapeutic housing research. We argue the crucial component of housing in supporting the sustainable primary care and public health-based cancer survivorship care model, particularly in the psychopathology context. Ultimately, we illustrate a series of interventions aiming at how housing environmental attributes can trigger PNI profile changes and discuss the potential implications in the non-pharmacological treatment of cancer survivors and patients with mental morbidities.

Survivors' preferences for the organization and delivery of supportive care after treatment: An integrative review

PURPOSE

Quality supportive care during cancer survivorship contributes to positive physical and psychosocial health. However, the potential positive impacts are influenced by survivors' perceptions of and ability to access the supportive care services that they deem important to their well-being. The purpose of this integrative review was to examine cancer survivors' preferences for the organization and delivery of supportive care services in the post-treatment period.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for relevant quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. Included studies were analyzed using directed content analysis, focused on models of care and type of provider, site of care, specialized services, structural supports through transitions, and sources of information.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine studies were included. Overall, survivors' preferences are not static and fluctuate over time based on their perceived health needs, concerns and points of transition in care. While specialist supportive care led by consultant oncologists is often identified as the preferred model of care, survivors' also express preferences for integrated and shared models of care, involving oncology nurses, primary care and multidisciplinary professionals to optimise coordination and impact of supportive care. Flexibility in care delivery, leveraging technology and expertise, was preferred to ensure convenient and timely access to supportive care.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer survivors express preferences for the organization and delivery of supportive care in the post-treatment phase that fluctuate based on their perceived health needs. The development of novel survivorship health services must consider survivors' preferences and allow flexibility in care delivery to facilitate engagement, uptake, and effectiveness.

Speech pathology service enhancement for people with head and neck cancer living in rural areas: Using a concept mapping approach to inform service change

BACKGROUND

Speech pathology (SP) services provide swallowing and communication intervention to people with head and neck cancer (HNC) across the continuum of care. However, difficulties exist with access and delivery of services in rural areas. The study aim was to identify actionable goals for SP change, utilizing a concept mapping approach.

METHODS

Eleven SP staff from two regional/remote services completed the concept mapping process. Multivariate analysis and multidimensional scaling were used to develop a final set of prioritized goals for change.

RESULTS

Between the two participating health services, 30 actionable goals were identified within the "green-zone" on the go-zone graph of importance and changeability. Among the most highly rated areas for change was the need to deliver and receive more support for training, mentoring, and supervision to consolidate skills.

CONCLUSIONS

This methodology enabled identification of prioritized, actionable changes to improve SP services for people with HNC living in regional/remote areas.

Exploring the role of general practitioners in addressing financial toxicity in cancer patients

Purpose

Financial toxicity (FT) describes financial distress or hardship as an outcome of cancer and its treatment. Minimising the impact of FT requires early assessment and intervention. General practice plays a significant role in the support of a person with cancer and may have an important role in the management of FT. The purpose of this study was to understand perspectives of general practitioners (GP) on addressing FT in the primary care setting, which may then help inform strategies to further support collaborative efforts to address FT.

Methods

A qualitative interpretive approach was utilised for this study. GPs were recruited through a GP conference and other professional networks using purposive, snowballing sampling techniques. Data collection continued until sufficient rich data had been obtained. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analysed using inductive analysis techniques.

Results

Twenty (n = 20) GPs participated in semi-structured in-depth telephone interviews. GPs identified that their role positions them well to provide some FT support, but there are limitations. Perceptions and philosophies about cancer management were drivers of referrals and financial conversations. Priorities for care of FT by GPs included improved cost information provision and accessible support.

Conclusion

GPs can play an important role in helping to address FT associated with cancer and its treatments if supported with the right information.

Supportive care practice: do we need guidelines?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the role of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in promoting the quality and consistency of supportive care in oncology to meet the needs of practitioners and patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

To maintain quality, guidelines must be regularly updated in terms of content as new treatment modalities like immunotherapy are introduced, adapted to new methodologies such as the application of artificial intelligence, adoption of multiple symptoms or orphan symptoms and capture new endpoints such a patient-reported outcomes. This helps prevent a major barrier to implementation; negative attitudes of practitioners towards guidelines. Digital guidelines provide greater opportunities for dissemination, ease of updating and can be linked to education modules. The quality must be assured by critically appraising the literature and then grading the level of evidence of the guidelines. The benefits of supportive care guidelines include guidance for clinical decision-making in a changing field, continuing professional development of practitioners, a source of information for patients and in highlighting the gaps where further research is necessary.

SUMMARY

The implications are that guidelines are required for supportive care in cancer but they must be constantly updated and evolve in their structure, the rigour of appraisal and content to promote quality care.

Sharing Cancer Survivorship Care between Oncology and Primary Care Providers: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals' Experiences

Survivorship care that is shared between oncology and primary care providers may be a suitable model to effectively and efficiently care for the growing survivor population, however recommendations supporting implementation are lacking. This qualitative study aimed to explore health care professionals’ (HCPs) perceived facilitators and barriers to the implementation, delivery and sustainability of shared survivorship care. Data were collected via semi-structured focus groups and analysed by inductive thematic analysis. Results identified four overarching themes: (1) considerations for HCPs; (2) considerations regarding patients; (3) considerations for planning and process; and (4) policy implications. For HCPs, subthemes included general practitioner (GP, primary care physician) knowledge and need for further training, having clear protocols for follow-up, and direct communication channels between providers. Patient considerations included identifying patients suitable for shared care, discussing shared care with patients early in their cancer journey, and patients’ relationships with their GPs. Regarding process, subthemes included rapid referral pathways back to hospital, care coordination, and ongoing data collection to inform refinement of a dynamic model. Finally, policy implications included development of policy to support a consistent shared care model, and reliable and sustainable funding mechanisms. Based on study findings, a set of recommendations for practice and policy were developed.