The impact of the survivorship care plan on health care use: 2-year follow-up results of the ROGY care trial

Applying Implementation Science to Identify Primary Care Providers' Enablers and Barriers to Using Survivorship Care Plans

Primary care providers (PCPs) have been given the responsibility of managing the follow-up care of low-risk cancer survivors after they are discharged from the oncology center. Survivorship Care Plans (SCPs) were developed to facilitate this transition, but research indicates inconsistencies in how they are implemented. A detailed examination of enablers and barriers that influence their use by PCPs is needed to understand how to improve SCPs and ultimately facilitate cancer survivors' transition to primary care. An interview guide was developed based on the second version of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF-2). PCPs participated in semi-structured interviews. Qualitative content analysis was used to develop a codebook to code text into each of the 14 TDF-2 domains. Thematic analysis was also used to generate themes and subthemes. Thirteen PCPs completed the interview and identified the following barriers to SCP use: unfamiliarity with the side effects of cancer treatment (Knowledge), lack of clarity on the roles of different healthcare professionals (Social Professional Role and Identity), follow-up tasks being outside of scope of practice (Social Professional Role and Identity), increased workload, lack of options for psychosocial support for survivors, managing different electronic medical records systems, logistical issues with liaising with oncology (Environmental Context and Resources), and patient factors (Social Influences). PCPs value the information provided in SCPs and found the follow-up guidance provided to be most helpful. However, SCP use could be improved through streamlining methods of communication and collaboration between oncology centres and community-based primary care settings.

"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.

Survivorship Care for Women Living With Ovarian Cancer: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer ranks 12th in cancer incidence among women in the United States and 5th among causes of cancer-related death. The typical treatment of ovarian cancer focuses on disease management, with little attention given to the survivorship needs of the patient. Qualitative work alludes to a gap in survivorship care; yet, evidence is lacking to support the delivery of survivorship care for individuals living with ovarian cancer. We developed the POSTCare survivorship platform with input from survivors of ovarian cancer and care partners as a means of delivering patient-centered survivorship care. This process is framed by the chronic care model and relevant behavioral theory.

OBJECTIVE

The overall goal of this study is to test processes of care that support quality of life (QOL) in survivorship. The specific aims are threefold: first, to test the efficacy of the POSTCare platform in supporting QOL, reducing depressive symptom burden, and reducing recurrence worry. In our second aim, we will examine factors that mediate the effect of the intervention. Our final aim focuses on understanding aspects of care platform design and delivery that may affect the potential for dissemination.

METHODS

We will enroll 120 survivors of ovarian cancer in a randomized controlled trial and collect data at 12 and 24 weeks. Each participant will be randomized to either the POSTCare platform or the standard of care process for survivorship. Our population will be derived from 3 clinics in Texas; each participant will have received some combination of treatment modalities; continued maintenance therapy is not exclusionary.

RESULTS

We will examine the impact of the POSTCare-O platform on QOL at 12 weeks after intervention as the primary end point. We will look at secondary outcomes, including depressive symptom burden, recurrence anxiety, and physical symptom burden. We will identify mediators important to the impact of the intervention to inform revisions of the intervention for subsequent studies. Data collection was initiated in November 2023 and will continue for approximately 2 years. We expect results from this study to be published in early 2026.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will contribute to the body of survivorship science by testing a flexible platform for survivorship care delivery adapted for the specific survivorship needs of patients with ovarian cancer. The completion of this project will contribute to the growing body of science to guide survivorship care for persons living with cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05752448; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05752448.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/48069.

Cancer worry is associated with increased use of supportive health care-results from the multinational InCHARGE study

PURPOSE

To assess use of health care following a diagnosis of endometrial, cervical, and ovarian cancer in the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark. Furthermore, to analyze the association between cancer worry and use of supportive care.

METHODS

An international multicenter cross-sectional questionnaire study was undertaken among female cancer survivors with endometrial, cervical, or ovarian cancer 1-7 years post diagnosis. We investigated different aspects of cancer survivorship and follow-up care. Health care use included information on the use of supportive health care, general practitioner (GP), and follow-up visits to the department of gynecology. Cancer worry was assessed with the Impact of Cancer (IoCv2) questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 1433 women completed the questionnaire. Health care use decreased from time of diagnosis and was higher among cervical and ovarian cancer survivors than endometrial cancer survivors. Twenty-five percent of the women with ovarian cancer reported severe cancer worry, in contrast to 10 and 15% of women diagnosed with endometrial and cervical cancer, respectively. Women with severe worry had significantly higher use of supportive care activities. In a multivariable regression analysis, cancer worry remained a significant correlate for use of supportive health care services irrespective of disease severity or prognosis. The strongest association was found for use of a psychologist (OR 2.1 [1.71-2.58]).

CONCLUSION

Cancer worry is associated with increased use of supportive care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Targeted, timely, and accessible psychological support aimed at severe cancer worry may improve survivorship care and ensure optimal referral of patients in need of additional care.

Pelvic floor dysfunction survivorship needs and referrals in the gynecologic oncology population: a narrative review

The population of survivors of gynecologic malignancies continues to grow. The population of gynecologic oncology survivors has a high prevalence of pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologic oncology patients identify several survivorship needs, including a need for more focused pelvic floor disorder sequelae care. The increasing focus on patient needs following cancer treatment has led to the development of survivorship care plans and other strategies for addressing post-treatment transitions and sequelae. Common themes in patient survivorship care are patient needs for flexible and integrated care, and it is unclear if survivorship care plans in their current state improve patient outcomes. Patient referrals, specifically to urogynecologists, may help address the gaps in survivorship care of pelvic floor dysfunction.The objective of this review is to discuss the burden of pelvic floor disorders in the gynecologic population and to contextualize these needs within broader survivorship needs. The review will then discuss current strategies of survivorship care, including a discussion of whether these methods meet survivorship pelvic floor disorder needs. This review addresses several gaps in the literature by contextualizing pelvic floor disorder needs within other survivorship needs and providing a critical discussion of current survivorship care strategies with a focus on pelvic floor disorders.

Survivorship care planning, quality of life, and confidence to transition to survivorship: A randomized controlled trial with women ending treatment for breast cancer

PURPOSE

The Polaris Oncology Survivorship Transition (POST) system is a computer-based program that integrates information from the electronic health record, oncology team, and the patient to produce a personalized Survivorship Care Plan. The purpose of this study was to compare the POST to treatment as usual on confidence, quality of life, and interest in mental health referrals in women ending treatment for breast cancer.

SAMPLE

Two hundred women (100 POST, 100 treatment as usual) ending treatment for breast cancer were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial.

DESIGN

Women randomized to the POST condition received a personalized care plan during a baseline/intervention appointment. At enrollment and baseline/intervention, a number of outcomes were examined in this study, including confidence to enter survivorship measured by the Confidence in Survivorship Index (CSI) and Quality of Life (QOL). One, three, and six month follow up assessments were also conducted.

FINDINGS

Treatment groups did not differ in terms of QOL scores at any time points. Mean CSI scores were statistically different between POST and treatment as usual at baseline for the total CSI score and both subscales, but only for confidence in knowledge about prevention and treatment at the 1-month follow-up. All significant differences were in favor of the POST intervention as mean CSI scores were higher for participants who received the POST intervention as opposed to treatment as usual. These findings disappeared at the 3 and 6 month follow up assessments. Finally, patients who received the POST intervention were twice as likely to request mental health/social services referrals compared to women who received treatment as usual.

IMPLICATIONS

Oncologists may use the POST to build personalized care plans for women ending treatment for cancer, which may enhance patients' confidence in the short term as well as encourage use of mental health resources.

Standardized versus personalized survivorship care plans for breast cancer survivors: A program evaluation

The Wellness Beyond Cancer Program provides survivorship care plans (SCPs) to cancer survivors, as they transition from cancer centres back to their primary care provider (PCP) upon treatment completion. A program evaluation examined whether standardized SCPs resulted in comparable outcomes on perceived knowledge and patient activation as personalized SCPs. Breast cancer survivors who received either standardized or personalized SCPs completed pre- and post-surveys during their discharge appointment, which included an in-house measure on perceived knowledge, The Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions, and The Patient Activation Measure. Eighty-seven breast cancer survivors completed the surveys (personalized SCP n = 43; standardized SCP n = 44). Standardized SCPs resulted in comparable knowledge and activation outcomes as personalized SCPs. Cost-efficient standardized SCPs may help alleviate human resource constraints and may be considered for further evaluation and implementation in cancer centres.

Plans de soins de suivi normalisés et individualisés dédiés aux survivantes du cancer du sein : Évaluation du programme

Le Programme de bien-être au-delà du cancer fournit des plans de soins de suivi (PSS) aux survivants qui passent du centre de cancérologie à leur médecin traitant une fois leurs traitements terminés. L’évaluation de ce programme a permis de vérifier si les PSS normalisés stimulent autant les connaissances et l’activation des patients que les PSS personnalisés. Les survivantes d’un cancer du sein qui ont reçu un PSS (normalisé ou personnalisé) ont répondu à un premier sondage avant le « rendez-vous de transition » puis à un autre à la fin de la rencontre. On leur demandait alors d’autoévaluer leurs connaissances et de répondre aux questions sur l’Efficacité perçue de la relation médecin-patient (PEPPI) et la Mesure d’activation du patient (MAP). Au total, quatre-vingt-sept survivantes du cancer du sein ont répondu aux sondages (PSS personnalisé, n = 43; PSS normalisé, n = 44). Dans les deux cas, les résultats sur les connaissances et l’activation des patientes étaient comparables. Les PSS normalisés, plus rentables, pourraient donc contribuer à alléger les contraintes relatives aux ressources humaines et faire l’objet d’évaluations plus poussées en vue d’être intégrés dans les centres de cancérologie.

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.

Simplifying Survivorship Care Planning: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing 3 Care Plan Delivery Approaches

BACKGROUND

Survivorship care plans seek to improve the transition to survivorship, but the required resources present implementation barriers. This randomized controlled trial aimed to identify the simplest, most effective approach for survivorship care planning.

METHODS

Stage 1-3 breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients aged 21+ completing treatment were recruited from an urban-academic and rural-community cancer center. Participants were randomized, stratified by recruitment site and cancer type, 1:1:1 to (a)mailed plan, (b)plan delivered during one-time transition visit, or (c)plan delivered during transition visit plus 6-month follow-up visit. Health service use data were collected from participants and medical records for 18 months. The primary outcome, receipt of all plan-recommended care, was compared across intervention arms using logistic regression adjusting for cancer type and recruitment site with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of 378 participants randomized, 159 (42.1%) were breast, 142 (37.6%) prostate, 77 (20.4%) colorectal cancer survivors; 207 (54.8%) from the academic site, 171 (45.2%) from the community site; 316 analyzable for the primary outcome. There was no difference across arms in the proportion of participants receiving all plan-recommended care: 45.2% mail, 50.5% one-visit, 42.7% two-visit (2-sided P = 0.60). Adherence by cancer type for mail, one-visit, and two-visit, respectively, was 52.2%, 53.3%, 40.0% for breast cancer; 48.6%, 64.1%, 57.1% for prostate cancer; and 23.8%, 19.0%, 26.1% for colorectal cancer. There were no statistically significant interactions by recruitment site or cancer type.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not find differences in receipt of recommended follow-up care by plan delivery approach. Feasibility and other factors may determine the best approach for survivorship care planning.

Role of the nurse in the design, delivery, monitoring and coordination of cancer survivorship care plans: An integrative review

AIM

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are recommended as a tool for the care of cancer survivors. SCPs have been implemented with a multidisciplinary approach; however, the specific role of nurses in the SCP is unknown. Our aim is to determine the role of nurses and their degree of participation in cancer SCPs.

DESIGN

Integrative review of the literature with systematic methodology.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane and Cancerlit databases were reviewed. Articles published up to March 2021 were included.

REVIEW METHOD

Of the 2,638 publications identified, 22 studies met our inclusion criteria. Quality of included studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tools.

RESULTS

The studies showed that nurses play a key role and participate in different phases of the SCP, including design, delivery, monitoring and coordination among different levels of care, with varying degrees of involvement and responsibility; design and delivery of the SCP are the phases with the highest nurse participation (18 out of 22 studies). The majority of SCPs are implemented in specialized, hospital-based care and focus on short-term cancer survivors, who are actively undergoing oncological treatments.

CONCLUSION

This review shows that nurses actively participate in the design, implementation and coordination of SCPs. However, SCPs focus on the acute survival and treatment phases, and there is a gap in their use in long-term cancer survivorship. This gap may be one reason the needs of long-term cancer survivors are not covered.

IMPACT

This review contributes to the current body of knowledge by addressing the role of nurses in cancer SCPs. We recommend the involvement of an advanced practice nurse as SCP coordinator to improve communication between cancer specialists and primary care providers and to promote continued care throughout the different phases of cancer survivorship, including long-term survival.

The Evaluation of Health-Related Quality of Life Issues Experienced by Patients with Desmoid-Type Fibromatosis (The QUALIFIED Study)-A Protocol for an International Cohort Study

Sporadic desmoid-type fibromatosis (DTF) is a rare soft tissue tumour with an unpredictable clinical course. These tumours are incapable of metastasising, but their local aggressive tumour growth and tendency to recur locally can result in a substantial symptom burden. Measuring the impact of DTF on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) can be challenging due to the variable clinical presentation of the disease. Therefore, a HRQoL instrument assessing DTF-specific issues is needed. The QUALIFIED study aims to (1) pre-test a previously developed DTF-specific HRQoL tool (the DTF-QoL); (2) evaluate prevalence of HRQoL issues in adult DTF patients; and (3) identify subgroups at risk of impaired HRQoL. This study (NCT04289077) is an international, multicentre, cross-sectional, observational cohort study. Patients ≥ 18 years with sporadic DTF from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom will be invited to complete a set of questionnaires specifically composed for this patient group. Questionnaires will be completed using PROFILES (Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship). Analyses will include testing the psychometric properties of the DTF-QoL and evaluating the prevalence of HRQoL issues using the DTF-QoL, EORTC QOL-C30 and EQ-5D-5L, among other questionnaires. This study will provide insight into HRQoL issues experienced by patients with DTF. Awareness of these issues and the implementation of the DTF-QoL in research and clinical practice can help to improve overall HRQoL and to provide personalised care.

Advocacy and Collaboration: Advancing Cancer Prevention and Screening

BACKGROUND

Cancer prevention and screening is a significant part of the cancer care continuum. Nurses are trusted professionals who can bring stakeholders together and serve diverse groups.

OBJECTIVES

This article describes how nurses can advance cancer prevention and screening initiatives in industry, education, legislative advocacy, research, survivorship, and program development and support.

METHODS

An online search and collaborative knowledge revealed examples of nurses leading the way in cancer prevention and screening efforts.

FINDINGS

Nurse-driven cancer prevention and screening collaborations advance care farther and faster. By creating maximum impact and mobilizing individual passion for a project, any nurse can find collaborative niche opportunities in clinical practice.

Survivorship Care Plans in Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Care Plan Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The Institute of Medicine recommends that survivorship care plans (SCPs) be included in cancer survivorship care. Our meta-analysis compares patient-reported outcomes between SCP and no SCP (control) conditions for cancer survivors. Our systematic review examines the feasibility of implementing SCPs from survivors' and health care professionals' perspectives and the impact of SCPs on health care professionals' knowledge and survivorship care provision.

METHODS

We searched seven online databases (inception to April 22, 2018) for articles assessing SCP feasibility and health care professional outcomes. Randomized controlled trials comparing patient-reported outcomes for SCP recipients versus controls were eligible for the meta-analysis. We performed random-effects meta-analyses using pooled standardized mean differences for each patient-reported outcome.

RESULTS

Eight articles were eligible for the meta-analysis (n = 1,286 survivors) and 50 for the systematic review (n = 18,949 survivors; n = 3,739 health care professionals). There were no significant differences between SCP recipients and controls at 6 months postintervention on self-reported cancer and survivorship knowledge, physical functioning, satisfaction with information provision, or self-efficacy or at 12 months on anxiety, cancer-specific distress, depression, or satisfaction with follow-up care. SCPs appear to be acceptable and potentially improve survivors' adherence to medical recommendations and health care professionals' knowledge of survivorship care and late effects.

CONCLUSION

SCPs appear feasible but do not improve survivors' patient-reported outcomes. Research should ascertain whether this is due to SCP ineffectiveness, implementation issues, or inappropriate research design of comparative effectiveness studies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Several organizations recommend that cancer survivors receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) after their cancer treatment; however, the impact of SCPs on cancer survivors and health care professionals is unclear. This systematic review suggests that although SCPs appear to be feasible and may improve health care professionals' knowledge of late effects and survivorship care, there is no evidence that SCPs affect cancer survivors' patient-reported outcomes. In order to justify the ongoing implementation of SCPs, additional research should evaluate SCP implementation and the research design of comparative effectiveness studies. Discussion may also be needed regarding the possibility that SCPs are fundamentally ineffective.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.

Assessing Key Stakeholders' Knowledge, Needs, and Preferences for Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Plans

Cancer survivorship care plans (SCPs) are endorsed to support quality care for cancer survivors, but uptake is slow. We assessed knowledge, needs, and preferences for SCP content and delivery from a wide variety of stakeholders. We focused SCP content for head and neck cancer as it is a disease prone to long-term side effects requiring management from multiple providers. We conducted telephone-based, qualitative interviews. We purposively sampled head and neck cancer survivors (n = 4), primary care physicians in the community (n = 5), and providers affiliated with a large academic medical center (n = 5) who treat head and neck cancer, cancer specialists (n = 6), and nurse practitioners/supportive care staff (n = 5). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using direct content analysis. Few participants reported personal experience with SCPs, but most supported the concept. Several key themes emerged: (1) perceived ambiguity regarding roles and responsibilities for SCPs, (2) a need to tailor the content and language based on the intended recipient, (3) documentation process should be as automated and streamlined as possible, (4) concerns about using the SCP to coordinate with outside providers, and (5) that SCPs would have added value as a "living document." We also report SCP-related issues that are unique to serving patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer. Effort is needed to tailor SCPs for different recipients and optimize their potential for successful implementation, impact on care outcomes, and sustainability. Many cancer survivors may not receive a SCP as part of routine care. Survivors could engage their health care team by requesting a SCP.

Patients' information coping styles influence the benefit of a survivorship care plan in the ROGY Care Trial: New insights for tailored delivery

BACKGROUND

In efforts to improve the implementation of survivorship care plans (SCPs), the authors assessed whether the impact of SCPs on patient-reported outcomes differed between patients with an information-seeking coping style (monitoring) versus those with an information-avoiding coping style (blunting).

METHODS

In the Registration System Oncological Gynecology (ROGY) Care Trial, 12 hospitals in the Netherlands were randomized to deliver SCP care or usual care. All patients with newly diagnosed endometrial and ovarian cancer in the SCP care arm received an SCP that was generated automatically by their oncology provider through the web-based ROGY registration system. Outcomes (satisfaction with information provision and care, illness perceptions, and health care use) were measured directly after initial treatment and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Information coping style was measured at 12 months after initial treatment.

RESULTS

Among patients who had a monitoring coping style (N = 123), those in the SCP care arm reported higher satisfaction with information provision (mean score: 73.9 vs 63.9, respectively; P = .04) and care (mean score: 74.5 vs 69.2, respectively; P = .03) compared with those in the usual care arm. Among patients who had a blunting coping style (N = 102), those in the SCP care arm reported a higher impact of the disease on life (mean score: 5.0 vs 4.5, respectively; P = .02) and a higher emotional impact of the disease (mean score: 5.4 vs 4.2, respectively; P = .01) compared with those in the usual care arm.

CONCLUSIONS

SCPs may be beneficial for patients who desire information about their disease, whereas SCPs may be less beneficial for patients who avoid medical information, suggesting a need for tailored SCP delivery to improve survivorship care.