Physician preferences and attitudes regarding different models of cancer survivorship care: a comparison of primary care providers and oncologists

Primary care provider-led cancer survivorship care in the first 5 years following initial cancer treatment: a scoping review of the barriers and solutions to implementation

PURPOSE

To synthesize the barriers to primary care provider (PCP)-led cancer survivorship care (≤ 5 years after initial cancer treatment) experienced by healthcare systems around the world, and to explore potential solutions that would succeed within a developed country.

METHODS

A scoping review of peer-reviewed articles and grey literature was conducted. Four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar) were searched for articles prior to April 2021.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven articles published across the globe (USA, Canada, Australia, European Union, and UK) met the review inclusion/exclusion criteria. The four most frequently discussed barriers to PCP-led survivorship care in healthcare systems were as follows: (1) insufficient communication between PCPs and cancer specialists, (2) limited PCP knowledge, (3) time restrictions for PCPs to provide comprehensive survivorship care, and (4) a lack of resources (e.g., survivorship care guidelines). Potential solutions to combat these barriers were as follows: (1) improving interdisciplinary communication, (2) bolstering PCP education, and (3) providing survivorship resources.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified and summarized key barriers and solutions to the provision of PCP-led cancer survivorship care. Importantly, the findings from this review provide insight and direction to guide optimization of cancer care practice within BC's healthcare system.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Optimizing the PCP-led survivorship care model will be a valuable contribution to the field of cancer survivorship care and will hopefully lead to more widespread use of this model, ultimately lessening the growing demand for cancer-specific care by cancer specialists.

"Opportunistic Care": A Focus Group Study of Nurses' Perspective on Caring for Long-term Cancer Survivors and Their Families

BACKGROUND

The global population of long-term cancer survivors is increasing, thanks to advances in treatments and care. Healthcare systems are working to address the unique needs of these individuals. However, there remains a knowledge gap concerning nurses' view on cancer survivorship care.

OBJECTIVE

To identify nurses' perspective of care for long-term cancer survivors and their families.

METHODS

This qualitative descriptive study used 5 focus groups comprising 33 nurses from primary healthcare and specialized oncology care. Data analysis was conducted through thematic analysis, and the study received ethical approval.

RESULTS

Long-term cancer survivors and their families often remained unrecognized as a distinct group within the healthcare system. Consequently, nurses provide what can be termed as "opportunistic care" during nurse-survivor encounters, addressing health needs beyond the purpose of the initial healthcare visit. This absence of a systematic or structured approach for this patient group has prompted nurses to seek the establishment of a comprehensive framework through survivorship care plans, thus ensuring a continuum of care for this specific population.

CONCLUSION

The lack of a structured approach to caring for long-term cancer survivors and their families, often invisible as a distinct population group, results in nurses providing care on an opportunistic basis.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

It is crucial to develop and implement survivorship care plans tailored to this population's needs. Simultaneously, it is important to advance research in this area and establish an educational framework for nurses, enabling them to effectively address the care of long-term cancer survivors and their families.

Pain management for post-treatment survivors of complex cancers: a qualitative study of opioids and cannabis

Aim: We aimed to understand experiences with opioids and cannabis for post-treatment cancer survivors. Patients & methods: We conducted seven focus groups among head and neck and lung cancer survivors, using standard qualitative methodology to explore themes around 1) post-treatment pain and 2) utilization, perceived benefits and perceived harms of cannabis and opioids. Results & conclusion: Survivors (N = 25) experienced addiction fears, stigma and access challenges for both products. Opioids were often perceived as critical for severe pain. Cannabis reduced pain and anxiety for many survivors, suggesting that anxiety screening, as recommended in guidelines, would improve traditional pain assessment. Opioids and cannabis present complex harms and benefits for post-treatment survivors who must balance pain management and minimizing side effects.

Oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward managing pre-existing chronic comorbidities during patients' active cancer treatment

PURPOSE

To examine practicing oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward management of pre-existing chronic conditions(PECC) during active cancer treatment(ACT).

METHODS

In December 2018, oncologists in the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were invited to complete a was pilot-tested, IRB-approved online survey about their perceived confidence in managing PECC. Pearson chi-square test was used to identify oncologists' differences in perceived confidence to manage PECC and attitudes toward co-management of patients' PECC with non-oncologic care providers. Perceived confidence and attitudes were analyzed as a function of medical specialty while controlling demographic and medical practice variables.

RESULTS

A total of 391 oncologists responded to the survey, 45.8% stated medical oncology as their primary specialty, 15.1% hematology oncology, 15.1% radiation oncology, 6.9% surgical oncology, and 17.1% other specialties such as gynecology oncology. Overall, 68.3% agreed (agree/strongly agree) that they were confident to manage PECC in the context of standard of care. However, only 46.6% and 19.7% remained confident when managing PECC previously managed by a primary care physician (PCP) and by a non-oncology subspecialist, respectively. Most oncologists (58.3%) agreed that patients' overall care was well coordinated, and 63.7% agreed that patients had optimal cancer and non-cancer care when PECC was co-managed with a non-oncology care provider.

CONCLUSION

Most oncologists felt confident to manage all PECC during patients' ACT, but their perceived confidence decreased for PECC previously managed by PCPs or by non-oncology subspecialists. Additionally, they had positive attitudes toward co-management of PECC with non-oncologic care providers. These results indicate opportunities for greater collaboration between oncologists and non-oncology care providers to ensure comprehensive and coordinated care for cancer patients with PECC.

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.

Primary care physicians' knowledge and confidence in providing cancer survivorship care: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To systematically review existing literature on knowledge and confidence of primary care physicians (PCPs) in cancer survivorship care.

METHODS

PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to July 2022 for quantitative and qualitative studies. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and quality. Outcomes were characterized by domains of quality cancer survivorship care.

RESULTS

Thirty-three papers were included, representing 28 unique studies; 22 cross-sectional surveys, 8 qualitative, and 3 mixed-methods studies. Most studies were conducted in North America (n = 23) and Europe (n = 8). For surveys, sample sizes ranged between 29 and 1124 PCPs. Knowledge and confidence in management of physical (n = 19) and psychosocial effects (n = 12), and surveillance for recurrences (n = 14) were described most often. Generally, a greater proportion of PCPs reported confidence in managing psychosocial effects (24-47% of PCPs, n= 5 studies) than physical effects (10-37%, n = 8). PCPs generally thought they had the necessary knowledge to detect recurrences (62-78%, n = 5), but reported limited confidence to do so (6-40%, n = 5). There was a commonly perceived need for education on long-term and late physical effects (n = 6), and cancer surveillance guidelines (n = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs' knowledge and confidence in cancer survivorship care varies across care domains. Suboptimal outcomes were identified in managing physical effects and recurrences after cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

These results provide insights into the potential role of PCPs in cancer survivorship care, medical education, and development of targeted interventions.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of a Personal Health Record Intervention Upon Surveillance Among Colorectal Cancer Survivors: Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

There are currently an estimated 1.5 million individuals living in the United States with colorectal cancer (CRC), and although the 5-year survival rate has increased, survivors are at risk for recurrence, particularly within the first 2-3 years after treatment. National guidelines recommend continued surveillance after resection to identify recurrence early on. Adherence among survivors ranges from 23% to 94%. Novel interventions are needed to increase CRC survivors' knowledge and confidence in managing their cancer and thus to increase adherence to follow-up surveillance.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to develop and test the feasibility and efficacy of a stand-alone, web-based personal health record (PHR) to increase surveillance adherence among CRC survivors, with patient beliefs about surveillance as secondary outcomes.

METHODS

A pre- and postintervention feasibility trial was conducted testing the efficacy of the colorectal cancer survivor (CRCS)-PHR, which had been previously developed using an iterative, user-centered design approach.

RESULTS

The average age of the sample was 58 (SD 9.9) years, with 57% (16/28) male and the majority married (20/28, 71%) and employed full-time (15/28, 54%). We observed a significant increase in adherence to colonoscopy (before: 11/21, 52% vs after: 18/21, 86%; P=.005) and CEA (14/21, 67% vs 20/21, 95%; P=.01), as well as a slight increase in CT scans (14/21, 67% vs 18/21, 86%; P=.10). The only significant impact on secondary outcome (patient beliefs) was benefits of CEA test (P=.04), as most of the beliefs were high at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility study lays the groundwork for continued development of the CRCS-PHR to increase CRC surveillance. Patient-centered technologies, such as the CRCS-PHR, represent an important potential approach to improving the receipt of guideline-concordant care and follow-up surveillance, and not just for CRC survivors. Researchers should continue to develop patient-centered health technologies with clinician implementation in mind to increase patient self-efficacy and surveillance adherence.

[The nurse at the heart of the assistance system for outpatients in the post-cancer period]

An innovative approach to post-treatment follow-up of lymphoma, Ambulatory Cancer Assistance (ACA) is a model of care shared between a general practitioner, a hematologist and a nurse coordinator. The role of the nurse coordinator is preponderant in this type of follow-up, which appears to be more effective in detecting medical, psychological and social events than standard follow-up. The AMA-AC helps patients return to their pre-cancer life.

Documenting patients’ and providers’ preferences when proposing a randomized controlled trial: a qualitative exploration

Background

With advances in cancer diagnosis and treatment, women with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) are living longer, increasing the number of patients receiving post-treatment follow-up care. Best-practice survivorship models recommend transitioning ESBC patients from oncology-provider (OP) care to community-based care. While developing materials for a future randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the feasibility of a nurse-led Telephone Survivorship Clinic (TSC) for a smooth transition of ESBC survivors to follow-up care, we explored patients’ and OPs’ reactions to several of our proposed methods.

Methods

We used a qualitative study design with thematic analysis and a two-pronged approach. We interviewed OPs, seeking feedback on ways to recruit their ESBC patients for the trial, and ESBC patients, seeking input on a questionnaire package assessing outcomes and processes in the trial.

Results

OPs identified facilitators and barriers and offered suggestions for study design and recruitment process improvement. Facilitators included the novelty and utility of the study and simplicity of methods; barriers included lack of coordination between treating and discharging clinicians, time constraints, language barriers, motivation, and using a paper-based referral letter. OPs suggested using a combination of electronic and paper referral letters and supporting clinicians to help with recruitment. Patient advisors reported satisfaction with the content and length of the assessment package. However, they questioned the relevance of some questions (childhood trauma) while adding questions about trust in physicians and proximity to primary-care providers.

Conclusions

OPs and patient advisors rated our methods for the proposed trial highly for their simplicity and relevance then suggested changes. These findings document processes that could be effective for cancer-patient recruitment in survivorship clinical trials.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01549-1.

Results of Engineering, Primary Care, Oncology Collaborative Regarding a Survey of Primary Care on a Re-Engineered Survivorship Care Plan

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) may facilitate cancer survivorship care shared between oncologists and primary care, particularly for patients more likely to receive care across healthcare systems such as rural patients. However, limited research has addressed primary care clinicians' information or workflow needs with regard to SCPs. This study's objective was to assess primary care clinicians' perceived usefulness with a re-engineered SCP previously developed by applying engineering approaches and informed by primary care preferences. An emailed survey of primary care clinicians assessed perceived usefulness with the re-engineered SCP. Clinicians were recruited across the USA from primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) with high concentrations of rural practices. Over 90% of respondents (n = 111) agreed that (1) the re-engineered SCP was useful (n = 95) and (2) they would want to receive a similar SCP (n = 93). The majority demonstrated high agreement regarding the SCP's relevance, understandability, content, and ability to help provide better survivorship care. Perceived usefulness was consistent between rural and non-rural clinicians. Suggested improvements involved decreased length, addition of a bulleted list, and electronic health record integration. Results indicate that the majority of primary care clinicians perceive the re-engineered SCP as useful. However, primary care clinicians indicated continued barriers despite end-user specific alterations. Future research should investigate additional strategies to support primary care survivorship-related workload, provide essential SCP content, and improve survivorship care delivery.

Safety of opioid prescribing among older cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors receive more long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) than people without cancer, but the safety of LTOT prescribing is unknown.

METHODS

Opioid-naive adults aged ≥66 years who had been diagnosed in 2008-2015 with breast, lung, head and neck, or colorectal cancer were identified with data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries linked with Medicare claims. Survivors with 1 or more LTOT episodes (≥90 consecutive days) occurring ≥1 year after their cancer diagnosis and before censoring at hospice entry, another cancer diagnosis, 6 months before death, or December 2016 were included. The safety of prescribing during the first 90 days of the first LTOT episode was measured during follow-up. As a positive safety indicator, the proportion of survivors with concurrent nonopioid pain management was measured. Indicators of less safe prescribing were the proportion of survivors with a high average daily opioid dose (≥90 morphine milligram equivalents) and the proportion of survivors with concurrent benzodiazepine dispensing. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify clinical predictors of each safety outcome.

RESULTS

In all, 3628 cancer survivors received LTOT during follow-up (median duration, 4.9 months; interquartile range, 3.5-8.0 months). Seventy-two percent of the survivors received multimodal pain management concurrently with LTOT. Eight percent of the survivors had high-dose opioid prescriptions; 25% of the survivors received benzodiazepines during LTOT. Multivariable analyses identified variations in safety measures by multiple clinical factors, although none were consistently significant across outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve safe LTOT prescribing for survivors, efforts should focus on increasing multimodal pain management and reducing inappropriate benzodiazepine prescribing. Different clinical predictors of each outcome suggest different drivers of safe prescribing.

Impact of Cancer Survivorship Care Training on Rural Primary Care Practice Teams: a Mixed Methods Approach

With the increasing numbers of individuals surviving a diagnosis of cancer, an aging population, and more individuals experiencing multi-morbidity, primary care providers (PCPs) are seeing more patients with a history of cancer. Effective strategies are needed to adequately prepare the primary care workforce for the phase of cancer care now widely recognized as survivorship. A survivorship education program for rural primary care practices was developed using a community engagement process and delivered at the practice level by community health liaisons. A mixed method approach was used to evaluate the program impact which included a questionnaire and interviews. Descriptive analyses and generalized linear regression were used to evaluate quantitative outcomes from the questionnaires. Immersion crystallization was used to define themes from the qualitative components. Thirty-two (32) practices participated, averaging 10.3 team members/practice. The percent of correct responses to the knowledge questionnaire increased significantly, almost doubling between baseline and post-test (25% vs 46%, p < .001). Four major themes emerged from the interviews which included positive impact of the training, putting the training into practice, intention to change care delivery, contextual influences in survivorship care. Evidence from the cancer survivorship education program evaluation supports its value to key stakeholders and the potential wider dissemination of the iSurvive Program. These data also suggest the need for additional investigation into other ways beyond education that primary care practices can be supported to ensure the needs of the growing cancer survivor population in the US are met.

Colorectal cancer survivors' experience of continuity of care provided by different health professionals: A qualitative evidence synthesis

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To systematically identify, synthesise and characterise the available qualitative evidence on the experience of adult colorectal cancer survivors with continuity of care led by different health professionals.

BACKGROUND

The limited evidence base for effective continuity of care led by different medical staff who assist colorectal cancer survivors with their unique survivorship care hampers the development of effective interventions. Synthesising the data on survivors' experience of care led by different health professionals is critical to develop such interventions.

DESIGN

A qualitative evidence synthesis using the Thomas and Harden method and the PRISMA 2020 checklist provided by the EQUATOR network were used.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched through November 2020 for qualitative and mixed methods studies in English. JBI-QARI was used to undertake a quality review of the identified studies. The review findings were synthesised by a team of researchers, and the level of confidence was evaluated using GRADE-CERQual.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. The identified analytical themes included experience of diversity, preference for health professionals and space for enhancement to facilitate improved medical care delivery. Colorectal cancer survivors report diverse experiences regarding continuity of care led by different providers. Specifically, they attach substantial importance to trusted relationships with providers that are closely associated with their overall care experience.

CONCLUSION

Effective communication and good rapport among stakeholders are cornerstones for addressing the complexity of ongoing care. Future interventions should include adjusting the percentage of care from different providers to deliver cost-effective and personalised continuity of care.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Synthesising data on survivors' experience facilitates the development of practical approaches to increase the quality of continuity of care and may also foster the integration of providers' advantages to enable more cost-effective intervention. The limited capacity of primary care providers may be enhanced by better cooperation and communication with specialists and by additional professional cancer-related training.

Primary care physicians' perceptions concerning engagement in cancer survivor care

Background

Given the growing diversity among cancer survivors and the fact that oncologists typically do not perform long‐term care, the expected role of primary care physicians (PCPs) in survivor care is expanding. However, communication and collaboration between oncologists and PCPs are lacking. Therefore, we assessed the perception of cancer survivor care among PCPs.

Methods

We sent a questionnaire to 767 Japanese Board–certified PCPs, regardless of facility type (clinics and hospitals), inquiring about PCPs' perceptions of their role in survivor care. Additionally, we included vignette‐based scenarios focused on colorectal and prostate cancer survivors to explore factors associated with their clinical decisions.

Results

We obtained 91 replies (response rate: 11.9%). A total of 75% of PCPs had encountered at least 1 cancer patient in actual practice. Even for patients actively receiving cancer treatment, >70% of PCPs reported that they were willing to engage in comprehensive survivor care, except for the administration of anticancer drugs. Further, 49% of PCPs considered that both PCPs and oncologists were suited to performing regular screening for cancer recurrence in high‐risk patients. Multivariable logistic regression analyses revealed that clinic PCPs were less inclined to conduct screening for recurrence than hospital PCPs in both colorectal (odds ratio, 3.85 [95% confidence interval 1.40–10.6]) and prostate (4.36 [95% confidence interval 1.51–12.6]) cancer scenarios.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that Japanese PCPs are willing to engage in survivor care and encourage closer collaboration between oncologists and PCPs. However, oncologists might need to request cooperation, considering the facility type with which PCPs are affiliated.

The present study revealed that Japanese primary care physicians (PCPs) were willing to engage in comprehensive survivor care, except for the administration of anticancer drugs. Further, most PCPs were willing to engage in psychosocial support to relieve survivors' anxiety and manage work‐related issues, but they have few opportunities to collaborate with oncologists. Oncologists and PCPs need to engage in more communication and conduct cancer survivor care while capitalizing on PCPs' willingness and capability.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Low-touch, team-based care for co-morbidity management in cancer patients: the ONE TEAM randomized controlled trial

Background

As treatments for cancer have improved, more people are surviving cancer. However, compared to people without a history of cancer, cancer survivors are more likely to die of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Increased risk for CVD-related mortality among cancer survivors is partially due to lack of medication adherence and problems that exist in care coordination between cancer specialists, primary care physicians, and cardiologists.

Methods/Design

The Onco-primary care networking to support TEAM-based care (ONE TEAM) study is an 18-month cluster-randomized controlled trial with clustering at the primary care clinic level. ONE TEAM compares the provision of the iGuide intervention to patients and primary care providers versus an education-only control. For phase 1, at the patient level, the intervention includes video vignettes and a live webinar; provider-level interventions include electronic health records-based communication and case-based webinars. Participants will be enrolled from across North Carolina one of their first visits with a cancer specialist (e.g., surgeon, radiation or medical oncologist). We use a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design.

Outcomes (measured at the patient level) will include Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measures of management of three CVD comorbidities using laboratory testing (glycated hemoglobin [A1c], lipid profile) and blood pressure measurements; (2) medication adherence assessed pharmacy refill data using Proportion of Days Covered (PDC); and (3) patient-provider communication (Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care, PCC-Ca-36).

Primary care clinics in the intervention arm will be considered non-responders if 90% or more of their participating patients do not meet the modified HEDIS quality metrics at the 6-month measurement, assessed once the first enrollee from each practice reaches the 12-month mark. Non-responders will be re-randomized to either continue to receive the iGuide 1 intervention, or to receive the iGuide 2 intervention, which includes tailored videos for participants and specialist consults with primary care providers.

Discussion

As the population of cancer survivors grows, ONE TEAM will contribute to closing the CVD outcomes gap among cancer survivors by optimizing and integrating cancer care and primary care teams. ONE TEAM is designed so that it will be possible for others to emulate and implement at scale.

Trial registration

This study (NCT04258813) was registered in clinicaltrals.gov on February 6, 2020.

Cancer: New Needs, New Models. Is It Time for a Community Oncologist? Another Brick in the Wall

Simple Summary

Community care activity in the oncology field does not exist. This unmet need contrasts with the increasing number of patients with a previous diagnosis of cancer.

Abstract

Over the last few decades, thanks to early detection, effective drugs, and personalized treatments, the natural history of cancer has radically changed. Thanks to these advances, we have observed how survival of cancer patients has increased, becoming an ever more important goal in cancer care. Effective clinical governance of survivorship care is essential to ensure a successful transition between active and post-treatment life, identifying optimization of healthcare outcomes and quality of life for patients as the primary objectives. For these reasons, potential intervention models must consider these differences to rationalize the available resources, including economic aspects. In this perspective, analyzing the different models proposed in the literature to manage this type of patients, we focus on the possible role of the so-called “community oncologist”. As a trained health professional, also focused on longevity, he could represent the right management solution in all those “intermediate” clinical conditions that arise between the hospital specialist, frequently overworked, and the general practitioner, often biased by the lack of specific expertise.

Primary Care Providers' Perceptions About Participating in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions

BACKGROUND

Primary care provider's (PCP) role in cancer care is expanding and may include supporting patients in their treatment decisions. However, the degree to which PCPs engage in this role for low-risk prostate cancer is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Characterize PCP perceptions regarding their role in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, national survey.

MAIN MEASURES

For men with low-risk prostate cancer, PCP reports of (1) confidence in treatment decision-making (high vs. low); (2) intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making (more vs. less).

KEY RESULTS

A total of 347 from 741 eligible PCPs responded (adjusted response rate 56%). Half of respondent PCPs (50.3%) reported high confidence about engaging in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. The odds of PCPs reporting high confidence were greater among those in solo practice (vs working with > 1 PCP) (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.14-4.17) and with higher volume of prostate cancer patients (> 15 vs. 6-10 in past year) (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.02-4.61). PCP report of their intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making varied: discussing worry (62.4%), reviewing benefits (48.5%) and risks (41.8%), and reviewing all treatment options (34.2%). PCPs who reported high confidence had increased odds of more participation in all aspects of active surveillance decision-making: reviewing all treatment options (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.82-5.32), discussing worry (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.28-3.51), and reviewing benefits (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.89-5.16) and risks (OR 3.20; 95% CI 1.91-5.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of PCPs were confident about engaging with patients in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making, though their intended participation varied widely across four key aspects of active surveillance care. With active surveillance being considered for other low-risk cancers (such as breast and thyroid), understanding factors influencing PCP involvement will be instrumental to supporting team-based cancer care.

Oncologists' Attitude and Knowledge about Cancer Rehabilitation

INTRODUCTION

Cancer survivors may experience multiple comorbidities related to the disease itself and adverse effects from treatment. Rehabilitation specialists could provide treatment options; however, oncologic rehabilitation services are underutilized.

OBJECTIVE

To assess oncologists' awareness of the benefits of rehabilitation for cancer care patients and to identify barriers to rehabilitation referrals in adult cancer patients in Puerto Rico.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Regional Annual Meeting of the Association of Medical Hematology and Oncology of Puerto Rico, 4-7 September 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-two oncologists.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants completed a 10-item questionnaire focused on demographics, knowledge, and clinical practices over the previous 12 months related to rehabilitation in cancer patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency, reasons, and timing for oncologist referral of cancer patients to rehabilitation. Perceived risks and benefits of rehabilitation in cancer patients and their correlation to patient referrals, prognosis, type of cancer, and type of symptoms.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven oncologists (88.1%) received minimal or no education about cancer rehabilitation, its benefits, and indications. This resulted in 31 oncologists (73.8%) referring less than 15% of their patients for rehabilitation, with almost a third of participants referring less than 5%. However, 39 (92.9%) agreed that rehabilitation is always or frequently beneficial for their patients. Fifteen (35.7%) said they did not refer patients if prognosis was less than 6 months, and 16 (38.0%) avoided referring patients with life expectancy of less than 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Although medical oncologists have some knowledge that rehabilitation is beneficial for their patients, there is a low referral rate. This could be due to lack of information about cancer rehabilitation and limited access to cancer rehabilitation specialists. Further efforts should be made to improve access to rehabilitation care for cancer patients and survivors.

Cancer survivorship training in family medicine residency programs

PURPOSE

The objective of the study was to examine current family medicine residency education in cancer survivorship and barriers to cancer survivorship education in the residency curriculum.

METHODS

Family medicine residency program directors (n = 628) were surveyed electronically between September 2019 and November 2019 through the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) annual program directory survey. Respondents (n = 250) answered questions regarding eventual cancer survivorship curriculum in their residency program, including interest and barriers to implementation. Program characteristics were assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Only 9.2% of family medicine residency program directors reported having a cancer survivorship curriculum. Sixty-nine percent of program directors reported they would implement a cancer survivorship curriculum if one was available. The most significant barrier to implementation of a cancer survivorship curriculum was insufficient time (39.6%) followed by lack of faculty expertise (26.9%). Respondents that reported lack of faculty expertise as a barrier to implementation of cancer survivorship training were more likely be report that they would be willing to implement a cancer survivorship curriculum (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the majority of primary care physicians providing care to cancer survivors, few family medicine residency programs have formal training in cancer survivorship care. There is interest in expanding family medicine residency training in cancer survivorship care among program directors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Gaining insight into the current educational curriculum and barriers to cancer survivorship training will lead to opportunities to improve residency training, and ultimately provide better care to cancer survivors in primary care settings.

Knowledge and self-efficacy for caring for breast and colon cancer survivors among safety net primary care providers

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) are critical to the provision of comprehensive care for cancer survivors, yet there is very little data on the practices and quality of survivorship care occurring in safety net primary care settings. This study aimed to assess the knowledge and attitudes of PCPs and preferences for care models for breast and colon cancer survivors in a safety net health network.

METHODS

A modified National Cancer Institute Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors was sent electronically to 220 PCPs in 12 primary care clinics in the San Francisco Health Network affiliated with Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center.

RESULTS

The response rate was 50% (110/220). About half of PCPs strongly/somewhat agreed (vs. strongly/somewhat disagreed) that PCPs have the knowledge needed to provide follow-up care related to breast (50%) and colon cancer (54%). Most providers (93%) correctly reported recommended frequency of mammography, however, frequency of blood tests and other imaging surveillance were not as well recognized for breast or colon cancer. Recognition of long-term side effects of chemotherapy drugs ranged from 12% for oxaliplatin to 44% for doxorubicin. Only 33% of providers reported receiving any survivorship training. The most preferred model for survivorship care was shared care model (40%).

CONCLUSIONS

Safety net PCPs prefer a shared care model for care of cancer survivors but are limited by lack of training, poor communication, and poor delineation of roles. Patient-centered survivorship care can be improved through effective oncologist-PCP-patient partnerships and coordination.

Primary Care Provider Involvement in Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Care

CONTEXT

While prior research has examined how primary care providers (PCPs) can care for breast and colon cancer survivors, little is known about their role in thyroid cancer survivorship.

OBJECTIVE

To understand PCP involvement and confidence in thyroid cancer survivorship care.

DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

We surveyed PCPs identified by thyroid cancer patients from the Georgia and LA SEER registries (n = 162, response rate 56%). PCPs reported their involvement in long-term surveillance and confidence in handling survivorship care (role of random thyroglobulin levels and neck ultrasound, and when to end long-term surveillance and refer back to the specialist). We examined: 1) PCP-reported factors associated with involvement using multivariable analyses; and 2) bivariate associations between involvement and confidence in handling survivorship care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PCP involvement (involved vs not involved) and confidence (high vs low).

RESULTS

Many PCPs (76%) reported being involved in long-term surveillance. Involvement was greater among PCPs who noted clinical guidelines as the most influential source in guiding treatment (OR 4.29; 95% CI, 1.56-11.82). PCPs reporting high confidence in handling survivorship varied by aspects of care: refer patient to specialist (39%), role of neck ultrasound (36%) and random thyroglobulin levels (27%), and end long-term surveillance (14%). PCPs reporting involvement were more likely to report high confidence in discussing the role of random thyroglobulin levels (33.3% vs 7.9% not involved; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

While PCPs reported being involved in long-term surveillance, gaps remain in their confidence in handling survivorship care. Thyroid cancer survivorship guidelines that delineate PCP roles present one opportunity to increase confidence about their participation.

Health care provider and patient preparedness for alternative colorectal cancer follow-up; a review

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) puts pressure on outpatient services due to the growing number of CRC survivors. The aim of this state-of-the-art review was to evaluate setting, manner and provider of follow-up. Moreover, perceptions of CRC survivors and health care providers regarding standard and alternative follow-up were examined. After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database, 69 articles were included reporting on CRC follow-up in the hospital, primary care and home setting. Hospital-based follow-up is most common and has been provided by surgeons, medical oncologists, and gastroenterologists, as well as nurses. Primary care-based follow-up has been provided by general practitioners or nurses. Even though most hospital- or primary care-based follow-up care requires patients to visit the clinic, telephone-based care has proven to be a feasible alternative. Most patients perceived follow-up as positive; valuing screening and detection for disease recurrence and appreciating support for physical and psychosocial symptoms. Hospital-based follow-up performed by the medical specialist or nurse is highly preferred by patients and health care providers. However, willingness of both patients and health care providers for alternative, primary care or remote follow-up exists. Nurse-led and GP-led follow-up have proven to be cost-effective alternatives compared to specialist-led follow-up. If proven safe and acceptable, remote follow-up can become a cost-effective alternative. To decrease the personal and financial burden of follow-up for a growing number of colorectal cancer survivors, a more acceptable, flexible and dynamic care follow-up mode consisting of enhanced communication and role definitions among clinicians is warranted.

Primary care physician's confidence and coordination regarding the survivorship care for older breast cancer survivors

PURPOSE

To examine primary care physician's (PCPs) internal (confidence, training) and external (communication, receipt of survivorship care plans (SCPs)) regarding their provision of survivorship care to older breast cancer survivors METHOD: A web-based questionnaire was completed individually by PCPs about their training and areas of survivorship they address under their care. A subset of survey participants was interviewed about survivorship care for older breast cancer survivors, care coordination, and areas of improvement regarding SCPs.

RESULTS

PCPs (n = 29) had an average 13.5 years in family practice. Forty-five percent surveyed as "somewhat confident" or "not confident" evaluating and managing the late effects of cancer treatment, and 25% surveyed as "somewhat confident" or "not confident" addressing the chronic comorbidities of older breast cancer survivors. More than half of PCPs surveyed that they reach out to their patients' oncologist "a little" or "none of the time" and that they receive SCPs "a little" or "none of the time." Semi-structured interviews also indicated that many PCPs did not receive a SCP from their patients' oncologists and that communication between the two providers regarding survivorship care was poor.

CONCLUSION

Participants indicated that PCP confidence in providing survivorship care is lacking and that lack of training, infrequent communication with oncologists, and underutilization of SCPs may contribute to this lack of confidence. These findings provide insight into the possible need for a well-defined shared care model, which has been encouraged but not always a routine part of survivorship care in various practice settings.

Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Caring for Adult Survivors of Hematologic Malignancies and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Primary care physicians (PCPs) may face barriers to caring for hematologic malignancy and hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) survivors.

METHODS

A Web-based survey consisting of 40 questions and 2 case scenarios was administered to 302 PCPs at 2 large integrated health care systems. The questionnaire assessed perceived barriers to delivery of care to hematologic malignancy/HCT survivors, resources available to care for cancer survivors, practices for care coordination with hematologist-oncologists, and preferred models of care delivery.

RESULTS

Overall response rate was 30% (n = 86). PCPs reported several barriers such as lack of resources to facilitate care (69%), lack of awareness of screening/prevention guidelines (55%) and psychosocial needs of survivors (65%), inadequate time (65%), and patient preference to follow up with their oncologists (66%). They expressed confidence in caring for general medical issues (84%) and general cancer screening (73%), but they preferred that oncologists manage cancer-related medical issues (42%) as well as screen for cancer recurrence (52%) and secondary cancers (55%). In multivariable analysis, PCPs who had previously cared for a large number of hematologic malignancy/HCT survivors and those with a longer time since graduation from medical school had greater confidence in managing cancer-related medical issues.

CONCLUSION

PCPs report several barriers in providing care to hematologic malignancy/HCT survivors. Clinical experience with this patient population is associated with greater confidence in providing survivorship care. Several barriers identified by PCPs in providing survivorship care to hematologic malignancy/HCT survivors are potentially addressable by education and clinical decision support tools and guidelines, thereby enhancing the patients' clinical experience and care coordination with hematologist-oncologists.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

MAIN MEASURES

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

KEY RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Differences in primary care providers’ and oncologists’ views on communication and coordination of care during active treatment of patients with cancer and comorbidities

Introduction

Management of comorbid diseases in patients with cancer is often unclear. The purpose of our study was to identify differences and similarities between primary care providers and oncologists’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding coordination of care and comorbid disease management for patients undergoing active cancer treatment.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using an anonymous self-administered survey which was available to approximately 600 providers in primary care and medical oncology practicing in both outpatient and inpatient settings from March to December 2014 at three academic hospitals in New York City (Mount Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, and Weill Cornell). Our survey instrument assessed physician knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs using a clinical vignette of a cancer patient undergoing active treatment. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic and practice details of survey responses, and univariate analyses were used to assess differences in responses between primary care providers and oncologists.

Results

The survey was completed by 203 providers, including 127 primary care providers (62.5%), 32 medical oncologists (15.8%), 11 palliative care physicians (5.4%), and 33 nurse practitioners or physician assistants (16.3%). Medical oncologists admitted more uncertainty regarding who should manage preventive care as compared to primary care providers (34.4% vs. 16.5%, p = 0.02), whereas primary care providers were more concerned about duplicated care (22.8% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.03). Both primary care providers and medical oncologists agreed that diabetes should be actively managed during cancer treatment. More primary care providers felt less strict glycemic control was allowable (56.8% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.05) and that it is allowable for patients to miss some diabetes-related visits (80.6% vs. 56.3%, p = 0.01).

Discussion

Primary care providers and medical oncologists differ in their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding coordination of care and management of comorbid conditions in patients undergoing cancer treatment. These differences reflect systemic challenges to provision of care to cancer patients and the need for a model of care coordination.

Practice, Preferences, and Practical Tips From Primary Care Physicians to Improve the Care of Cancer Survivors

PURPOSE

There is a need to improve the coordination of care and communication between primary care physicians (PCPs) and oncology after completion of initial cancer treatment. We sought to evaluate PCP experiences and perspectives in cancer survivorship and to identify practical opportunities to improve care within an integrated health care system with a shared electronic health record (EHR).

METHODS

We conducted a self-administered, anonymous, electronic survey of PCPs in practices affiliated with an academic medical center to evaluate practices, the sense of preparedness, and preferences in the delivery of survivorship care and communication with oncology.

RESULTS

One hundred seventeen of 225 PCPs responded (response rate, 52%). A majority were engaged in survivorship care, with 94% reporting managing psychological sequelae of cancer, 84% managing chronic physical complications, 71% screening for cancer recurrence, and 60% screening for late complications. However, few PCPs felt prepared to manage these issues: 65% felt unprepared to screen for late complications, and 36% felt unprepared to screen for recurrence. Common barriers to survivorship care were uncertainty about delegation of responsibility (73%) and a lack of training (72%). PCPs expressed strong interest in survivorship care plans, preferring active tracking of ongoing care needs and delegation of care responsibility in the EHR active problem list over traditional summary documents.

CONCLUSION

Most PCPs are engaged in cancer survivorship care but report barriers to optimal care delivery. Opportunities to improve care could include targeted education to increase preparedness to deliver survivorship care, and optimization of communication among providers, including active survivorship care plans in the EHR.

Determinants of quality prostate cancer survivorship care across the primary and specialty care interface: Lessons from the Veterans Health Administration

Background

With over 3 million US prostate cancer survivors, ensuring high‐quality, coordinated cancer survivorship care is important. However, implementation of recommended team‐based cancer care has lagged, and determinants of quality care across primary and specialty care remain unclear. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), we explored multidisciplinary determinants of quality survivorship care in an integrated delivery system.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews with primary (4) and specialty (7) care providers across 6 Veterans Health Administration clinic sites. Using template analysis, we coded interview transcripts into the TDF, mapping statements to specific constructs within each domain. We assessed whether each construct was perceived a barrier or facilitator, examining results for both primary care providers (PCPs) and prostate cancer specialists.

Results

Cancer specialists and PCPs identified 2 primary TDF domains impacting their prostate cancer survivorship care: Knowledge and Environmental context and resources. Both groups noted knowledge (about survivorship care) and procedural knowledge (about how to deliver survivorship care) as positive determinants or facilitators, whereas resources/material resources (to deliver survivorship care) was noted as a negative determinant or barrier to care. Additional domains more commonly referenced by cancer specialists included Social/professional role and identity and Goals, while PCPs reported the domain Beliefs about capabilities as relevant.

Conclusions

We used the TDF to identify several behavioral domains acting as determinants of high‐quality, team‐based prostate cancer survivorship care. These results can inform prostate cancer survivorship care plan content, and may guide tailored, multidisciplinary implementation strategies to improve survivorship care across the primary and specialty care interface.

Provider Involvement in Care During Initial Cancer Treatment and Patient Preferences for Provider Roles After Initial Treatment

PURPOSE

Patients report strong preferences regarding which provider-oncologist or primary care provider (PCP)-handles their primary care after initial cancer treatment (eg, other cancer screenings, preventive care, comorbidity management). Little is known about associations between provider involvement during initial cancer treatment and patient preferences for provider roles after initial treatment.

METHODS

Women who received a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer in 2014 to 2015 were identified from the Georgia and Los Angeles County SEER registries and surveyed (N = 2,502; 68% response rate). Women reported the level of their providers' involvement in their care during initial cancer treatment. Associations between level of medical oncologist's participation and PCP's engagement during initial cancer treatment and patient preferences for oncologist led ( v PCP led) other cancer screenings after initial treatment were examined using multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

During their initial cancer treatment, 20% of women reported medical oncologists participated substantially in delivering primary care and 66% reported PCPs were highly engaged in their cancer care. Two-thirds (66%) of women preferred medical oncologists to handle other cancer screenings after initial treatment. Women who reported substantial medical oncologist participation in primary care were more likely (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.91) and those who reported high PCP engagement in cancer care were less likely (adjusted odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.53) to prefer oncologist-led other cancer screenings after initial treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers' involvement during initial cancer treatment may affect patient preferences regarding provision of follow-up primary care. Clarifying provider roles as early as during cancer treatment may help to better delineate their roles throughout survivorship.

Survivorship care for early-stage colorectal cancer: a national survey of general surgeons and colorectal surgeons

AIM

Few data are available on the optimal long-term care of early-stage colorectal cancer survivors, termed survivorship care. We aimed to investigate current practice in the management of patients following treatment for early-stage colorectal cancer.

METHOD

We performed an internet survey of members of the American Society for Colon and Rectal Surgeons about several aspects of long-term care, including allocation of clinician responsibility, challenges with transitions to primary care physicians (PCPs), long-term care plan provision and recommended surgical follow-up duration.

RESULTS

Overall, 251 surgeons responded. Surgeons reported taking primary responsibility for managing adverse surgical effects (93.2%) and surveillance testing (imaging and laboratories 68.6%, endoscopy 82.4%). Barriers to PCP handoffs included patient preference for surgical follow-up (endorsed by 76.6%) and inadequate communication with PCPs (endorsed by 36.9%). Approximately one-third of surgeons routinely provide survivorship care plans to PCPs; surgeons who received formal survivorship training were more likely to do so compared to those without such training (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.57, 6.92). Although only 20.4% of surgeons follow their patients beyond 5 years, individuals in practice longer were more likely to continue long-term follow-up than those with ≤ 10 years of experience.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest survey of surgeons regarding long-term management for early-stage colorectal cancer and highlights the potential for improved coordination with PCPs and increased implementation of survivorship care plans.

Pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) and maternal gestational weight gain are positively associated with birth outcomes in rural Malawi

BACKGROUND

Whereas poor maternal nutritional status before and during pregnancy is widely associated with adverse birth outcomes, studies quantifying this association in low income countries are scarce. We examined whether maternal pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) and weight gain during pregnancy are associated with birth outcomes in rural Malawi.

METHODS

We analyzed the associations between pre-pregnancy BMI and average weekly gestational weight gain (WWG) and birth outcomes [duration of gestation, birth weight, length-for-age z-score (LAZ), and head circumference-for-age z-score (HCZ)]. We also determined whether women with low or high pre-pregnancy BMI or women with inadequate or excessive WWG were at increased risk of adverse birth outcomes.

RESULTS

The analyses included 1287 women with a mean BMI of 21.8 kg/m2, of whom 5.9% were underweight (< 18.5 kg/m2), 10.9% were overweight (≥ 25 kg/m2), 71.8% had low WWG [below the lower limit of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendation], and 5.2% had high WWG (above IOM recommendation). In adjusted models, pre-pregnancy BMI was not associated with duration of pregnancy (p = 0.926), but was positively associated with birth weight and HCZ (<0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively). WWG was positively associated with duration of gestation (p = 0.031), birth weight (p<0.001), LAZ (p<0.001), and HCZ (p<0.001). Compared to normal weight women, underweight women were at increased risk of having stunted infants (p = 0.029). Women with low WWG were at increased risk of having infants with low birth weight (p = 0.006) and small head circumference (p = 0.024) compared to those with normal weight gain. Those with high BMI or high WWG were not at increased risk of adverse birth outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

WWG is an important predictor of birth outcomes in rural Malawi. The high prevalence of inadequate WWG compared to low pre-pregnancy BMI highlights the need to investigate causes of inadequate weight gain in this region.

The Role of Primary Care Physicians in Childhood Cancer Survivorship Care: Multiperspective Interviews

BACKGROUND

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are well placed to provide holistic care to survivors of childhood cancer and may relieve growing pressures on specialist-led follow-up. We evaluated PCPs' role and confidence in providing follow-up care to survivors of childhood cancer.

SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS

In Stage 1, survivors and parents (of young survivors) from 11 Australian and New Zealand hospitals completed interviews about their PCPs' role in their follow-up. Participants nominated their PCP for an interview for Stage 2. In Stage 2, PCPs completed interviews about their confidence and preparedness in delivering childhood cancer survivorship care.

RESULTS

Stage 1: One hundred twenty survivors (36% male, mean age: 25.6 years) and parents of young survivors (58% male survivors, survivors' mean age: 12.7 years) completed interviews. Few survivors (23%) and parents (10%) visited their PCP for cancer-related care and reported similar reasons for not seeking PCP-led follow-up including low confidence in PCPs (48%), low perceived PCP cancer knowledge (38%), and difficulty finding good/regular PCPs (31%). Participants indicated feeling "disconnected" from their PCP during their cancer treatment phase. Stage 2: Fifty-one PCPs (57% male, mean years practicing: 28.3) completed interviews. Fifty percent of PCPs reported feeling confident providing care to childhood cancer survivors. PCPs had high unmet information needs relating to survivors' late effects risks (94%) and preferred a highly prescriptive approach to improve their confidence delivering survivorship care.

CONCLUSION

Improved communication and greater PCP involvement during treatment/early survivorship may help overcome survivors' and parents' low confidence in PCPs. PCPs are willing but require clear guidance from tertiary providers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Childhood cancer survivors and their parents have low confidence in primary care physicians' ability to manage their survivorship care. Encouraging engagement in primary care is important to promote holistic follow-up care, continuity of care, and long-term surveillance. Survivors'/parents' confidence in physicians may be improved by better involving primary care physicians throughout treatment and early survivorship, and by introducing the concept of eventual transition to adult and primary services. Although physicians are willing to deliver childhood cancer survivorship care, their confidence in doing so may be improved through better communication with tertiary services and more appropriate training.

Gynecological cancer patients' attitudes toward follow-up care after cancer treatment: Do preferences reflect patients' experience? A cross-sectional questionnaire study

INTRODUCTION

Due to an increasing number of cancer patients, new follow-up models are being debated, among them follow-up by general practitioners. Before changing surveillance, it is important to explore patients' views. The purpose of this study was to compare attitudes toward follow-up care among patients treated for gynecological cancer who had not yet started a follow-up regimen, with those who had been attending a hospital-based follow-up regimen for more than one year.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey among gynecological cancer patients recruited from three Norwegian hospitals in 2013-2015: Sørlandet Hospital Kristiansand, Sørlandet Hospital Arendal and St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim.

RESULTS

In all, 239 patients agreed to participate, 100 who had not yet started follow-up and 139 who had been attending more than one year of follow-up. Patients reported that they preferred to be followed up by a gynecologist rather than by their GP, whom they viewed as less competent for this purpose. However, patients who had not yet started follow-up were more willing to be followed up by a GP. Overall, patients rated detection of recurrence as the most important aspect of follow-up visits.

CONCLUSIONS

The gynecological cancer patients in our study preferred a hospital-based follow-up model. However, patients who had not yet started follow-up were more willing to be followed up by a GP. If follow-up is to be provided by GPs for selected patients, it is important that these patients are informed early of the value and limitations of follow-up visits, to ensure that they feel safe.

Survivorship care models for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Well-elucidated survivorship care models are pertinent in the long-term management of cancer survivors. This review aims to update existing literature and evaluate the key components of such models with a focus on breast, colorectal, and adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors.

METHODS

The PubMed electronic database were searched comprehensively for relevant publications in English through February 2017. Additional manual searches were conducted for reference lists and official guidelines published by oncology societies. Included studies addressed the correct cancer type, elaborated on each model's structure and provided patient-related outcome data to support its model's effectiveness if applicable.

RESULTS

Among the 25 included studies, six articles described survivorship models applicable to all cancer types, and the remaining focused on breast cancer (n = 10), colorectal cancer (n = 3), and AYA cancer survivors (n = 6). Shared-care model was largely described for all cancer types whereas multidisciplinary model predominated for AYA cancer survivors. Upon evaluation, these models described the essential components of survivorship care fairly well except for the care coordination component. Also, the definition of time points of care was vague and noncomprehensive.

CONCLUSION

The reviewed survivorship model studies were comprehensive but were limited by a lack of existing rigorous evaluation efforts to assess their effectiveness. This review further provided valuable recommendations for future methodological evaluation of such models. This review has highlighted care coordination as an area for improvement and emphasized the importance of obtaining data on the effectiveness of these survivorship models to ensure satisfactory quality of life and health outcomes.

The state of survivorship care in radiation oncology: Results from a nationally distributed survey

BACKGROUND

Survivorship care has become an increasingly critical component of oncologic care as well as a quality practice and reimbursement metric. To the authors' knowledge, the current climate of survivorship medicine in radiation oncology has not been investigated fully.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved, Internet-based survey examining practices and preparedness in survivorship care was distributed to radiation oncology practices participating in the American College of Radiology Radiation Oncology Practice Accreditation program between November 2016 and January 2017. A total of 78 surveys were completed. Among these, 2 were nonphysicians, resulting in 76 evaluable responses.

RESULTS

Radiation oncologists (ROs) frequently reported that they are the primary provider in the evaluation of late toxicities and the recurrence of primary cancer. Although approximately 68% of ROs frequently discuss plans for future care with survivors, few provide a written survivorship care plan to their patients (18%) or the patients' primary care providers (24%). Patient prognosis, disease site, and reimbursement factors often influence the provision of survivorship care. Although ROs report that several platforms offer training in survivorship medicine, the quality of these resources is variable and extensive instruction is rare. Fewer than one-half of ROs believe they are expertly trained in survivorship care.

CONCLUSIONS

ROs play an active role within the multidisciplinary team in the cancer-related follow-up care of survivors. Investigation of barriers to the provision of survivorship care and optimization of service delivery should be pursued further. The development of high-quality, easily accessible educational programming is needed so that ROs can participate more effectively in the care of cancer survivors. Cancer 2018;124:2653-60. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Gynecologic cancer survivor preferences for long-term surveillance

BACKGROUND

With ongoing healthcare reform and shrinking numbers of oncologists, appropriate triaging of gynecologic cancer survivor care is crucial. Input from patients is a necessary part of this task. The objective of this study was to assess the preferences of gynecologic cancer survivors for surveillance after the completion of treatment.

METHODS

A 38-item questionnaire was developed and launched in conjunction with the Foundation for Women's Cancer (FWC). All women who registered as gynecologic cancer survivors with the FWC were invited to participate. Patients were asked about physician preferences for multiple symptoms and diagnoses, and when they felt comfortable transferring care out of their oncologists' offices. Analyses were performed with chi-square and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Six hundred twenty four patients completed the questionnaire. Sixty six percent had ovarian cancer, and 86% were primarily treated by a gynecologic oncologist. Fifty seven percent of the respondents reported being unwilling to see a physician other than their oncologist for survivorship care at any time. Women age > 60 years were less willing to leave their oncologists for survivorship care at any time compared to younger women (OR 1.53 [95% CI 1.03-2.27], p = 0.03). Ovarian cancer survivors were also more likely to report a desire to stay with their oncologists compared with uterine cancer survivors (p < 0.001). With few exceptions, respondents preferred management of non-oncologic medical problems by their oncologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Gynecologic cancer survivors prefer that their oncologists remain heavily involved in survivorship care. Reconciling patient needs with physician and financial constraints will be a challenge as the survivor population continues to grow.

Predictors of Follow-Up Visits Post Radical Prostatectomy

Long-term follow-up care among prostate cancer patients is important as biochemical recurrence can occur many years after diagnosis, with 20%-30% of men experiencing biochemical recurrence within 10 years of treatment. This study examined predictors of follow-up care among 1,158 radical prostatectomy patients, treated at the Washington University in St. Louis, within 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years post surgery. Predictors examined included age at surgery, race (Black vs. White), rural/urban status, education, marital status, and prostate cancer aggressiveness. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between the predictors and follow-up visits with a urologist in 6 months, the 1st year, and the 2nd year post surgery. In a secondary analysis, any follow-up visit with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test was included, regardless of provider type. Men that were Black ( 6 months OR: 0.60; 95% CI [0.36, 0.99], 1 year OR: 0.34; 95% CI [0.20, 0.59], 2 year OR: 0.41; 95% CI [0.25, 0.68]), resided in a rural residence ( 1 year OR: 0.61; 95% CI [0.44, 0.85], 2 year OR: 0.41; 95% CI [0.25, 0.68]), or were unmarried ( 2 year OR: 0.69; 95% CI [0.49, 0.97]) had a reduced odds of follow-up visits with a urologist. In models where any follow-up visit with a PSA test was examined, race remained a significant predictor of follow-up. The results indicate that Black men, men residing in a rural residence, and unmarried men may not receive adequate long-term follow-up care following radical prostatectomy. These men represent a high-risk group that could benefit from increased support post treatment.

Chronic disease management perspectives of colorectal cancer survivors using the Veterans Affairs healthcare system: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the US. CRC survivors may have complex healthcare needs requiring care from both specialists and primary care. Our objective was to understand how CRC survivors perceive their survivorship care, especially management of their cardiovascular-related chronic diseases.

METHODS

We identified patients diagnosed with non-metastatic CRC between 10/1/2007 and 12/31/2015 at Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in North Carolina or Virginia. In 2016, we conducted telephone-based, semi-structured interviews to assess survivors' experiences with cancer survivorship and changes in health priorities. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded.

RESULTS

The 25 participants were, on average, 64 years old and approximately 4 years post-CRC diagnosis at the time of interview; most were white (60%), male (92%), and diagnosed with colon cancer (64%) as opposed to rectal cancer. CRC survivors reported: (1) a shift in focus from surviving cancer to reducing cardiovascular disease risk (e.g., by managing weight); (2) challenges with taking medications for CVD-related conditions; (3) new recognition of the importance of engaging with primary care providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Experiences with cancer shapes how survivors view their health. Management of cardiovascular-related chronic disease is important to veteran CRC survivors. There is a need to deliver cardiovascular disease risk reduction programs tailored for CRC survivors.

Bridging the gap from the oncology setting to community care through a cross-Canada environmental scan

Due to the growing number of cancer survivors, there is a need to evaluate the provision of follow-up care to ensure the needs of patients are met. An environmental scan was conducted provincially and nationally, which aimed to gain a broader understanding of survivorship care, highlight any trends, and report disparities in care during the transition from the oncology to the community setting. The environmental scan involved gathering data from nine out of 10 provinces through telephone interviews, seeking relevant documentation, and identifying areas of good practice. There was a wide variation in practice across the provinces and some recommendations for improving care are made. Findings emphasize the need to promote increased patient self-management and self-advocacy. Implications from the study are that cancer survivorship is a complex topic that requires communication and coordination across services to ensure a seamless transition.