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

Onco-Primary Care of Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Primary clinicians foster long-term relationships with patients and play key roles in the treatment journey for patients with cancer. Primary clinicians are important members of the multidisciplinary team and are central in coordinating and providing supportive care. The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatments and metastatic disease requires an awareness of their long-term survival benefits and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Primary clinicians collaborate with the oncology care team to increase irAE awareness and identify institutional and individualized approaches to manage irAEs. IrAEs can develop at any time and present with a spectrum of symptoms, making them difficult to differentiate from other conditions. IrAE management relies on early recognition, close monitoring, and intervention with corticosteroids and/or dose interruption. Delayed irAEs underscore the importance of continued clinical vigilance following treatment, as primary clinicians are patients' most enduring point of contact. Primary clinicians have a critical role in supporting the care of patients with cancer and ensuring appropriate irAE recognition, monitoring, and intervention. Long-term continuity of care is critical for the immuno-oncology patient journey.

Spanish Society of Medical Oncology recommendations for comprehensive assessment and care of cancer survivors' needs

This article reviews the contemporary and inclusive definition of cancer survivorship, including patients with and without disease who have completed or continue to undergo treatment. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) describes in this article the needs of these patients and outlines a care model based on an estimation of cancer incidence and identification of patient needs, to enable the provision of practical actions to achieve effective care. The objectives of this review are to identify the main effects of cancer on survivors and to establish appropriate ways of measuring these effects, as well as discussing the management of physical, psychological and social, occupational, financial, and other health-related needs. We suggest a multidisciplinary care model and training programs for the different professionals involved in care, and highlight challenges and the future role of the SEOM and health-care policy in ensuring optimum care of cancer survivors.

Health Care Contact Days Among Older Cancer Survivors

PURPOSE

Health care contact days-days spent receiving health care outside the home-represent an intuitive, practical, and person-centered measure of time consumed by health care.

METHODS

We linked 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and traditional Medicare claims data for community-dwelling older adults with a history of cancer. We identified contact days (ie, spent in a hospital, emergency department, skilled nursing facility, or inpatient hospice or receiving ambulatory care including an office visit, procedure, treatment, imaging, or test) and described patterns of total and ambulatory contact days. Using weighted Poisson regression models, we identified factors associated with contact days.

RESULTS

We included 1,168 older adults representing 4.51 million cancer survivors (median age, 76.4 years, 52.8% women). The median (IQR) time from cancer diagnosis was 65 (27-126) months. In 2019, these adults had mean (standard deviation) total contact days of 28.4 (27.6) and ambulatory contact days of 24.2 (23.6). These included days for tests (8.0 [8.8]), imaging (3.6 [4.1]), visits with any clinicians (12.4 [11.5]), and visits with primary care clinicians (4.4 [4.7]), and nononcology specialists (7.1 [9.4]) specifically. Sixty-four percent of days with a nonvisit ambulatory service (eg, a test) were not on the same day as a clinician visit. Factors associated with more total contact days included younger age, lower income, more chronic conditions, poor self-rated health, and tendency to "go to doctor as soon as feel bad."

CONCLUSION

Older adult cancer survivors spent nearly 1 month of the year receiving health care outside the home. This care was largely ambulatory, often delivered by nononcologists, and varied by factors beyond clinical characteristics. These results highlight the need to recognize patient burdens and improve survivorship care delivery, including through care coordination.

Colorectal cancer screening utilization among breast, cervical, prostate, skin, and lung cancer survivors

PURPOSE

To examine whether sociodemographic characteristics, access to care, risk behavior factors, and chronic health conditions were associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization among breast, cervical, prostate, skin, and lung cancer survivors.

METHODS

We analyzed the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data on 9780 eligible cancer survivors. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models were applied to assess the association between guideline-concordant CRC screening and the mentioned characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 81.9%, 65%, 88%,78.1%, and 80.1% of breast, cervical, prostate, skin, and lung cancer survivors received CRC screening, respectively (p-value < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, breast, cervical, and skin cancer survivors aged 60 years or older were associated with higher odds of receiving CRC screening. Respondents that had their recency of routine checkup two or more years before had lower odds of having CRC screening among cervical (OR = 0.06; 95% CI, 0.02-0.22), prostate (OR = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.49), and skin cancer (OR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.70) survivors. The presence of chronic diseases was also associated with guideline-concordant CRC screening among breast, prostate, and skin cancer survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide important evidence on potential factors that are associated with guideline-concordant CRC screening utilization across different cancer survivors, which include older age, recency of routine checkup, and multiple chronic diseases. Moreover, variation in CRC screening utilization across cancer survivors may highlight missed opportunities for secondary cancer prevention.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Establishing clear CRC screening guidelines and including patient-provider communication on recommendation in cancer survivorship care may increase adherence to CRC screening.

VersKiK qualitative study design: actual follow-up needs of paediatric cancer survivors, their informal caregivers and follow-up stakeholder perceptions in Germany

INTRODUCTION

This article presents the study design of the qualitative part of the VersKiK study (Long-term care, care needs and wellbeing of individuals after cancer in childhood or adolescence: study protocol of a large scale multi-methods non-interventional study) aiming to explore actual follow-up needs of childhood and adolescence cancer survivors and their informal caregivers, gaps in current follow-up care provision and trajectories of cancer survivors' transition from paediatric to adult healthcare.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct up to 30 interviews with survivors of childhood and adolescence cancer and their informal caregivers with up to 20 participant observations of follow-up appointments. The results of these will be discussed in up to four focus groups with healthcare professionals and representatives of self-help groups. The study design aims to evaluate follow-up care after childhood cancer considering perspectives from survivors, their informal caregivers as well as healthcare providers. The combination of different data sources will allow us to get an in-depth understanding of the current state of follow-up care after paediatric cancer in Germany and to suggest recommendations for care improvement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The VersKiK study was approved by the Ethics Committee Otto von Guericke University on 2 July 2021 (103/21), by the Ethics Committee of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz on 16 June 2021 (2021-16035), by the Ethics Committee University of Lübeck on 10 November 2021 (21-451), by the Ethics Committee University of Hospital Bonn on 28 February 2022 (05/22). For each part of the qualitative study, a separate written informed consent is prepared and approved accordingly by the ethics committees named above.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Registered at German Clinical Trial Register, ID: DRKS00026092.

Myths and Presumptions About Cancer Survivorship

Identifying cancer survivorship myths and presumptions perpetuated in survivorship circles.

Development of a supportive care needs eHealth application for patients with cervical cancer undergoing surgery: a feasibility study

PURPOSE

To inform the development of an eHealth application for patients with cervical cancer for monitoring supportive care needs, perceived care supply and quality of life.

METHODS

A mixed-method design was used. The 19-month process involved five phases: (1) a literature review to screen the components of applications, (2) a cross-sectional needs assessment for patients with cervical cancer to define the needs and application program frame, (3) expert consultation to refine the draft, (4) software development, and (5) pilot testing and user comment collection. Patients in the intervention group received a 7-day application intervention combined with usual care. Supportive care needs, perceived care supply, quality of life and user's additional comments were collected.

RESULTS

The literature review results in phase 1 revealed the importance of full preparation, especially a supportive care needs assessment, before application development. Subsequent supportive care needs investigation in phase 2 revealed that the most urgent needs were informational needs and privacy protection. In phase 3, 43 expert recommendations for application improvement were refined. The new application contained the patient and the health care professional portal in phase 4. Then, on Day 7, there existed score changes of the outcome measures in both intervention and control group. Users had a positive experience with the application.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the feasibility of applications targeting access to supportive care, which may be effective for improving the outcome measures but needed to be evaluated in future studies.

Research-practice partnership: supporting rural cancer survivors in Montana

The objective of this Research-Practice Partnership was to disseminate and implement strategies to assist Community Health Centers in improving the care of rural cancer survivors in Montana. Funded by the National Cancer Institute's Community Outreach and Engagement mechanism, this project utilized the MAP-IT (Mobilize, Assess, Plan, Implement, Track) program planning framework from Healthy People 2020. Partners included Montana's Department of Public Health and Human Services' Cancer Control Program, Montana Primary Care Association, One Health Community Health Center, and Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah. Project activities focused on (1) Planning, creating, implementing, and evaluating provider/care team education sessions through the Project ECHO tele-mentoring platform and through short webinars and (2) Building processes for identifying, documenting, and connecting with survivors using electronic health records (EHRs) and other resources. Lessons learned from this project include the value of aligning partner goals from the outset to foster sustained commitment, the importance of adapting implementation plans to address challenges and leverage opportunities, and the need for accurate EHR data and formal processes for identifying and engaging with cancer survivors.

It's Not Always Easy: Cancer Survivorship Care in Primary Care Settings

By 2040, an anticipated 26.1 million people with a history of cancer will be part of the healthcare system. The purpose of this study was to explore Missouri-based non-oncology clinicians' perspectives on caring for patients with a history of cancer to identify needs of rural-based clinicians to optimize their patients' survivorship care. Using an interpretive qualitative descriptive approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 non-oncology clinicians. We encouraged clinicians to discuss their approach to caring for patients with a history of cancer and invited them to talk about what might help them increase their knowledge of survivorship care best practices. Through interpretive qualitative descriptive analysis methods including first level coding and constant comparison, we found there is consensus that cancer survivorship care is important; however, training that now guides our clinicians occurred mostly during residency, if at all. Clinicians relied on previous patient encounters and oncology notes combined with their patients' personal account of treatment history to inform the best next steps. Clinicians expressed strong interest in having a simple protocol of their patient's treatment with prompts of known long-term cancer treatment-related effects and a patient-centric follow-up monitoring schedule (mandatory vs recommended vs optional). Clinicians expressed interest in educational opportunities about cancer care and ability for curbside consults with oncologists. They consistently noted the limited resources available in rural areas and that rural patients may have different preferences and approaches to cancer survivorship. There is a clear opportunity to improve non-oncology clinicians' knowledge of the needs of people with a history of cancer as well as their own knowledge base and self-efficacy, especially in rural settings.

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.

Quality of life patient/cancer survivor version in Chinese cancer survivors: A validation study

Objective

To validate the Chinese version of the Quality of Life (QoL) Patient/Cancer Survivor Version (QOLCSV-C) for measuring QoL in Chinese cancer survivors.

Methods

The study followed a seven-step research practice guideline for cross-cultural research instrument validation study including translation, adaptation, and psychometric assessment. A forward- and backward-translation procedure was approached, followed by cultural adaptation and acceptability assessment. For its psychometric properties, its concurrent validity with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) was examined with correlation analysis. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and item-total and item-subtotal correlations of the QOLCSV-C were obtained. Factor analyses were conducted. Floor and ceiling effects and the discriminant performance of the selected variables on QOLCSV-C score were also examined.

Results

The QOLCSV-C was translated from the 41-item QOLCSV with four domains: psychological, physical, spiritual and social well-being. The content validity was excellent (CVI ​= ​1.00). Time spent to complete the QOLCSV-C was about 10 ​min. The QOLCSV-C was found easy to use, appropriate in length, and reflective of their QoL. The strong correlation between QOLCSV-C and FACT-G indicates a satisfactory concurrent validity (Spearman's rho ​= ​0.765, P ​< ​0.001, n ​= ​205). The overall internal consistency of the QOLCSV-C (Cronbach's alpha ​= ​0.888) and the split-half reliability (Spearman-Brown r ​= ​0.918) were excellent. Most of the items show moderate to strong item-total correlation. The exploratory factor analysis revealed a four-factor solution, and confirmatory factor analysis has a satisfactory model fit with indicative items. None of the total scores of QOLCSV-C reveal the floor or ceiling effect. For discriminant performance, variables demonstrating significant between-group differences include sleep quality, pain, fatigue, nausea, physical health, and financial burden.

Conclusions

The QOLCSV-C is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the QoL in Chinese cancer survivors. Future studies can explore the factor structure, gender universal or specific items, and significant predictors of QoL of cancer survivors in different cultures.

Identifying the Needs of Primary Care Providers Caring for Breast and Colon Cancer Survivors in the Safety-Net: a Qualitative Study

As the number of cancer survivors continues to increase and given the shortage of oncology clinicians in safety net health care settings, primary care providers (PCPs) in these settings will increasingly provide cancer survivorship care. In order to ensure equitable care for low-income and underserved breast and colon cancer survivors, it is essential to understand the safety-net PCPs' perspective. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews with 11 PCPs working in a safety-net health care system to identify their needs in caring for cancer survivors. Interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. Two coders independently coded the interviews and conducted regular meetings until we reached consensus on the results. Analysis was based in grounded theory and performed using the constant comparative method. Thematic analysis identified six themes as follows: (1) Cancer survivorship care can be integrated with the whole person and chronic disease care management that occurs in primary care; (2) PCPs' perceptions regarding patients' survivorship care needs and their confidence in meeting those needs; (3) preference for a shared care model; (4) coordination of care; (5) PCPs' need for survivorship care education and training; and (6) unique issues involved in the care of older cancer survivors. PCPs in the safety-net believe that providing comprehensive survivorship care requires coordination of care through the cancer continuum. Tools like checklists, electronic health records-based communication, and convenient electronic consultations with cancer specialists would enhance the quality of survivorship care. Respondents advocate the inclusion of survivorship care education in medical education. The continuity of care with PCPs means that they play a particularly important role in the care of older cancer survivors.

Specialist versus Primary Care Prostate Cancer Follow-Up: A Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Simple Summary

Worldwide, there is an increased focus on reorganizing prostate cancer survivorship care. In this study, we describe for the first time a process evaluation as part of a randomized controlled trial that is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. We found that within an RCT context, 67% patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. Patients who received primary care-based follow-up care experienced this to be more personal, efficient, and sustainable. However, patients, GPs, and specialists also indicated several challenges that are described in this study and should be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.

Abstract

Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.

What is the prevalence of fear of cancer recurrence in cancer survivors and patients? A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Care for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is considered the most common unmet need among cancer survivors. Yet the prevalence of FCR and predisposing factors remain inconclusive. To support targeted care, we provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence and severity of FCR among cancer survivors and patients, as measured using the short form of the validated Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI-SF). We also report on associations between FCR and clinical and demographic characteristics.

METHODS

This is a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis on the prevalence of FCR. In the review, we included all studies that used the FCRI-SF with adult (≥18 years) cancer survivors and patients. Date of search: 7 February 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool.

RESULTS

IPD were requested from 87 unique studies and provided for 46 studies comprising 11,226 participants from 13 countries. 9311 respondents were included for the main analyses. On the FCRI-SF (range 0-36), 58.8% of respondents scored ≥13, 45.1% scored ≥16 and 19.2% scored ≥22. FCR decreased with age and women reported more FCR than men. FCR was found across cancer types and continents and for all time periods since cancer diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

FCR affects a considerable number of cancer survivors and patients. It is therefore important that healthcare providers discuss this issue with their patients and provide treatment when needed. Further research is needed to investigate how best to prevent and treat FCR and to identify other factors associated with FCR. The protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42020142185).

American Cancer Society nutrition and physical activity guideline for cancer survivors

The overall 5-year relative survival rate for all cancers combined is now 68%, and there are over 16.9 million survivors in the United States. Evidence from laboratory and observational studies suggests that factors such as diet, physical activity, and obesity may affect risk for recurrence and overall survival after a cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this American Cancer Society guideline is to provide evidence-based, cancer-specific recommendations for anthropometric parameters, physical activity, diet, and alcohol intake for reducing recurrence and cancer-specific and overall mortality. The audiences for this guideline are health care providers caring for cancer survivors as well as cancer survivors and their families. The guideline is intended to serve as a resource for informing American Cancer Society programs, health policy, and the media. Sources of evidence that form the basis of this guideline are systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, pooled analyses of cohort studies, and large randomized clinical trials published since 2012. Recommendations for nutrition and physical activity during cancer treatment, informed by current practice, large cancer care organizations, and reviews of other expert bodies, are also presented. To provide additional context for the guidelines, the authors also include information on the relationship between health-related behaviors and comorbidities, long-term sequelae and patient-reported outcomes, and health disparities, with attention to enabling survivors' ability to adhere to recommendations. Approaches to meet survivors' needs are addressed as well as clinical care coordination and resources for nutrition and physical activity counseling after a cancer diagnosis.

Anticipating mental health needs after chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer using patient-reported symptom screening

PURPOSE

Many patients with breast cancer experience depression and anxiety for years after completing systemic chemotherapy, which negatively impact overall symptom burden, quality of life, and treatment outcomes. The objective of this study was to examine the utility of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to predict mental health needs in patients with breast cancer during post-chemotherapy follow-up care.

METHODS

In a sample of women with non-metastatic breast cancer, associations between patient-reported depression and anxiety at end of chemotherapy and post-chemotherapy mental health needs were evaluated using log-binomial regression adjusted for functional status, social activity limitations, and time from chemotherapy.

RESULTS

In a sample of 149 women, 40% reported at least mild depressive symptoms and 52% reported at least mild anxiety at the end of chemotherapy. Over an average 3.2 years post-chemotherapy (range: 0.7-5.6 years), 23% received new psychiatric diagnoses, 21% engaged in mental health specialty care, and 62% were prescribed psychotropic medications. End of chemotherapy depression and anxiety were associated with future prescription of psychotropic medications (RR 1.52; 95% CI 1.14-2.03), as well as greater number of psychotropics. Associations were strongest with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [(depression: RR 4.75; 95% CI 2.06-10.95); (anxiety: RR 3.68; 95% CI 1.62-8.36); (depression and anxiety: RR 2.98; 95% CI 1.65-5.36)].

CONCLUSION

Diagnosis of and treatment for depression and anxiety are common among women with breast cancer after completing chemotherapy. Prescriptions for psychotropic medications during the initial years after systemic chemotherapy can be anticipated by depression and anxiety screening at end of chemotherapy.

Defining a patient-centered approach to cancer survivorship care: development of the patient centered survivorship care index (PC-SCI)

Purpose

This study presents the validation of an index that defines and measures a patient-centered approach to quality survivorship care.

Methods

We conducted a national survey of 1,278 survivors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers to identify their priorities for cancer survivorship care. We identified 42 items that were “very important or absolutely essential” to study participants. We then conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA/CFA) to develop and validate the Patient-Centered Survivorship Care Index (PC-SCI).

Results

A seven-factor structure was identified based on EFA on a randomly split half sample and then validated by CFA based on the other half sample. The seven factors include: (1) information and support in survivorship (7 items), (2) having a medical home (10 items) (3) patient engagement in care (3 items), (4) care coordination (5 items), (5) insurance navigation (3 items), (6) care transitions from oncologist to primary care (3 items), and (7) prevention and wellness services (5 items). All factors have excellent composite reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha 0.84-0.94, Coefficient of Omega: 0.81-0.94).

Conclusions

Providing quality post-treatment care is critical for the long-term health and well-being of survivors. The PC-SCI defines a patient-centered approach to survivorship care to complement clinical practice guidelines. The PC-SCI has acceptable composite reliability, providing the field with a valid instrument of patient-centered survivorship care. The PC-SCI provides cancer centers with a means to guide, measure and monitor the development of their survivorship care to align with patient priorities of care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02362750, 13 February 2015

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07356-6.

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.

Health information technology to support cancer survivorship care planning: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The study sought to conduct a systematic review to explore the functions utilized by electronic cancer survivorship care planning interventions and assess their effects on patient and provider outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines, studies published from January 2000 to January 2020 were identified in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and the ACM Digital Library . The search combined terms for cancer, survivorship, care planning, and health information technology (HIT). Eligible studies evaluated the effects of a HIT intervention on usability, knowledge, process, or health-related outcomes. A total of 578 abstracts were reviewed, resulting in 60 manuscripts describing 40 studies. Thematic analyses were used to define meta-themes of system functions, and Fisher's exact tests were used to examine associations between functions and outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients were the target end users for 18 interventions, while 12 targeted providers and 10 targeted both groups. Interventions used patient-reported outcomes collection (60%), automated content generation (58%), electronic sharing (40%), persistent engagement (28%), and communication features (20%). Overall, interventions decreased the time to create survivorship care plans (SCPs) and supported care planning knowledge and abilities, but results were mixed for effects on healthcare utilization, SCP sharing, and provoking anxiety. Persistent engagement features were associated with improvements in health or quality-of-life outcomes (17 studies, P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Features that engaged users persistently over time were associated with better health and quality-of-life outcomes. Most systems have not capitalized on the potential of HIT to share SCPs across a care team and support care coordination.

Preferences of gastric cancer survivors for follow-up care-a multicenter discrete choice experiment study

PURPOSES

The purposes of this discrete choice experiment are as follows: (1) to investigate the preferences of gastric cancer survivors for follow-up care, and (2) to quantify the importance of follow-up care-related characteristics that may affect the gastric cancer survivors' choices of their follow-up, so as to provide references for the development of the follow-up strategy of gastric cancer survivors.

METHODS

Discrete choice experimental design principle was applied to develop the survey instrument. All questionnaires were filled out by the respondents and collected on site. A mixed logit model was used to estimate gastric cancer survivors' preferences. Willingness to pay estimates and simulations of follow-up uptake rates were calculated.

RESULTS

All six attributes are significantly important for the follow-up care of gastric cancer survivors (p < 0.05). Achieving very thorough follow-up contents was the most valued attribute level (coefficient = 1.995). Specialist doctors are the most preferred providers followed by specialist nurses, and gastric cancer survivors were willing to pay more for these attribute levels. Changes in attribute levels affected uptake rate of follow-up. When the multiple attribute levels were changed at the same time, a very thorough follow-up content was provided by the same specialist doctor (specialist nurse), and the probability of receiving follow-up increases by 95.82% (94.90%).

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics of follow-up care in our study reflect the health management services' expectations of gastric cancer survivors. A dedicated specialist nurse involved in follow-up care should be developed to contribute to solve the complex and multifaceted personal needs of gastric cancer survivors.

Disparities in colorectal cancer screening among breast and prostate cancer survivors

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended as an integral part of cancer survivorship care. We compared the rates of CRC screening among breast and prostate cancer survivors by primary cancer type, patient, and geographic characteristics in a community‐based health‐care system with a mix of large and small metro urban areas.

Materials and Methods

Data for this retrospective study were abstracted from medical records of a multi‐specialty practice serving about 250,000 individuals in southern Maryland. Breast (N = 1056) and prostate (N = 891) cancer patients diagnosed prior to 2015 were followed up till June 2018. Screening colonoscopy within the last 10 years was considered to be guideline concordant. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the prevalence odds ratios of being concordant on CRC screening by age, gender, race, metro area type, obesity, diabetes, and hypertension.

Results

Overall 51% of survivors had undergone a screening colonoscopy. However, there was a difference in CRC screening rate between prostate (54%) and breast (44%) cancer survivors. Older age (≥65 years), being a breast cancer survivor compared to prostate cancer, and living in a large compared to small metropolitan area were associated with a lower probability of receiving CRC screening. Having hypertension was associated with higher likelihood of being current on colonoscopy screening guidelines among survivors; but diabetes and obesity were not associated with CRC screening.

Conclusions

Low levels of CRC screening utilization were found among breast and prostate cancer survivors in a single center in Southern Maryland. Gender, comorbidities, and residential factors were associated with receipt of CRC screening.