Primary Care Providers' Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices Regarding Their Preparedness to Provide Cancer Survivorship Care

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.

Unmet Needs and Care Delivery Gaps Among Rural Cancer Survivors

Community-based healthcare delivery systems frequently lack cancer-specific survivorship support services. This leads to a burden of unmet needs that is magnified in rural areas. Using sequential mixed methods we assessed unmet needs among rural cancer survivors diagnosed between 2015 and 2021. The Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS) assessed 5 domains; Physical and Daily Living, Psychological, Support and Supportive Services, Sexual, and Health Information. Needs were analyzed across domains by cancer type. Survey respondents were recruited for qualitative interviews to identify care gaps. Three hundred and sixty two surveys were analyzed. Participants were 85% White (n = 349) 65% (n = 234) female and averaged 2.03 years beyond cancer diagnosis. Nearly half (49.5%) of respondents reported unmet needs, predominantly in physical, psychological, and health information domains. Needs differed by stage of disease. Eleven interviews identified care gap themes regarding; Finding Support and Supportive Services and Health Information regarding Care Delivery and Continuity of Care. Patients experience persistent unmet needs after a cancer diagnosis across multiple functional domains. Access to community-based support services and health information is lacking. Community based resources are needed to improve access to care for long-term cancer survivors.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Myths and Presumptions About Cancer Survivorship

Identifying cancer survivorship myths and presumptions perpetuated in survivorship circles.

Research-practice partnership: supporting rural cancer survivors in Montana

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

Conceptualizing "Preparedness for Practice": Perspectives of Early-Career Family Physicians

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Competency based medical education (CBME) aims to produce graduates prepared for independent practice. Many equate the outcome of "preparedness for practice" with acquisition of competence. As educators evaluate the outcomes of CBME, being clear on the concept of preparedness for practice will clarify the results that are measured and assessed. This study examined how preparedness for practice is conceptualized in the literature and by family physicians (FPs) in Canada.

METHODS

This multimethod qualitative descriptive study included (1) rapid review and narrative synthesis, and (2) focus groups with early-career FPs using maximum variation sampling until thematic saturation was reached. Focus groups explored the FPs' conceptualizations of preparedness for practice. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded before content analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-four articles met the inclusion criteria, and 59 early-career FPs participated in the focus groups. We found no consensus on the conceptualization of preparedness for practice in the literature; however, the concept often was described as acquiring competencies for program requirements. In the literature and focus groups, we identified four themes for the conceptualization of preparedness for practice. These themes included competence, self-confidence (self-efficacy, self-concept), capability, and adaptability.

CONCLUSIONS

Preparedness for practice involves an interplay of dynamic and complex constructs from competence, self-confidence, capability, and adaptability. Preparedness is more than possessing several competencies; it calls for integrating and applying competencies in complex and changing environments. This study aimed to start a discussion on what end point is desirable for residency education and proposed that the end point needs to move beyond competencies.

"Care needs to be integrated" Patient and provider perspectives on a cancer shared-care model

PURPOSE

Current early-stage breast and gynecological cancer care models often begin with a referral from a primary care provider (PCP) or gynecologist (OB/Gyn) and end with a patient being transitioned back to the referring provider at the completion of treatment. There is frequently little communication between oncologists and the referring provider during treatment, and this pattern continues after the patient completes their treatment.

METHODS

We convened a diverse Patient Advisory Board (PAB) to identify areas where breast or gynecological cancer patients felt they could benefit from additional support during and after their cancer care. PAB members attended five Zoom meetings and completed four online surveys. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with primary care or OB/Gyn physicians to collect information on current practices.

RESULTS

Patients identified multiple areas in which they needed additional support from their PCP. Providers also identified topics on which they could use additional training. However, there was little overlap between patient and provider priority topics. Both patients and providers agreed that there was inadequate communication between the cancer center and PCPs before, during, and after cancer treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A shared-care model that emphasizes communication between primary care providers, the oncology care team, and patients is urgently needed. Patients indicated the need for additional support from their PCP on specific topics, and PCPs were interested in continuing their education to better serve their patients with cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The importance of consistent communication among all parties during the entire cancer journey was emphasized as a key area for improvement.

Use of Cancer Survivorship Care Guidelines by Primary Care Providers in the United States

BACKGROUND

National organizations have issued comprehensive cancer survivorship care guidelines to improve care of cancer survivors, many of whom receive care from primary care providers (PCPs).

METHODS

We analyzed Porter Novelli's 2019 fall DocStyles survey to assess use of cancer survivorship care guidelines, receipt of survivorship training, types of survivorship services provided, and confidence providing care among PCPs in the United States. We grouped PCPs by use of any guideline ("users") versus no guideline use ("nonusers"). We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine guideline use, having received training on providing survivorship care services, and confidence in providing care. Within the panel, sampling quotas were set so that 1000 primary care physicians, 250 OB/GYNs, 250 pediatricians, and 250 nurse practitioners/physician assistants were recruited.

RESULTS

To reach selected quotas, 2696 health professionals were initially contacted to participate, resulting in a response rate of 64.9%. Sixty-two percent of PCPs reported using guidelines and 17% reported receiving survivorship care training. Use of any guidelines or receiving training was associated with reporting providing a range of survivorship services and confidence in providing care. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, guideline users were more likely than nonusers to report assessing genetic cancer risk (OR = 2.65 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.68, 4.17)), screening for cancer recurrence (OR = 2.32 95% CI (1.70, 3.18)) or a new cancer (OR = 1.63, 95% CI (1.20, 2.22)), and treating depression (OR = 1.64, 95% CI (1.20, 2.25)). Receipt of training was also positively associated with providing genetic risk assessment, surveillance for recurrence, as well as assessing late/long-term effects, and treating pain, fatigue, and sexual side effects.

CONCLUSION

Survivorship care guidelines and training support PCPs in providing a range of survivorship care services.

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

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

Association of Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life With Physician-Reported Toxicities in Adolescents and Young Adults Receiving Radiation Therapy for Cancer

PURPOSE

Radiation therapy (RT) may cause toxicities in adolescents and young adults (AYAs, age 15-39 years) with cancer. However, the range of RT-related toxicities in AYAs and the affect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has not been well studied. We performed a cross-sectional study in AYAs with cancer who received RT to identify RT-related toxicities and examine their impact on HRQOL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 178 AYAs received RT and completed PROMIS HRQOL instruments from 2018 to 2022. Acute and late physician-graded Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events RT-related toxicities were extracted and described. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate the association of RT-related toxicity with HRQOL scores during and post-RT. Minimally important differences were used to evaluate the clinical relevance of relationships.

RESULTS

Eighty-four AYAs completed HRQOL surveys during RT and 94 post-RT. In the during-RT cohort, 75 AYAs (89%) had acute RT-related toxicities, a majority of which were grade 1 (n = 49, 65%). AYAs who experienced acute grade 2 or greater toxicities reported worse global mental health (B = -7.35, P < .01) and worse pain (B = 5.25, P = .01) than those with acute grade 1 or no toxicities. In the post-RT cohort, the median (IQR) time from RT to survey completion was 24 (14-27) months. Forty-eight AYAs (51%) had late RT-related toxicities, a majority of which were grade 1 (n = 37, 77%). AYAs who experienced late grade 2 or greater toxicities reported worse global mental health (B = -8.07, P = .01), worse social roles (B = -9.96, P < .01), and greater sleep disturbance (B = 10.75, P < .01) than those with late grade 1 or no RT toxicities.

CONCLUSION

The presence of acute and late grade 2 or greater RT-related toxicities may contribute to worse HRQOL, especially global mental health, in AYAs. Screening and early interventions to mitigate RT-related toxicities are needed to improve AYA HRQOL.

Synthesis of Existent Oncology Curricula for Primary Care Providers: A Scoping Review With a Global Equity Lens

PURPOSE

Global increases in cancer, coupled with a shortage of cancer specialists, has led to an increasing role for primary care providers (PCP) in cancer care. This review aimed to examine all extant cancer curricula for PCPs and to analyze the motivations for curriculum development.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from inception to October 13, 2021, with no language restrictions. The initial search yielded 11,162 articles and 10,902 articles underwent title and abstract review. After full-text review, 139 articles were included. Numeric and thematic analyses were conducted and education programs were evaluated using Bloom's taxonomy.

RESULTS

Most curricula were developed in high-income countries (HICs), with 58% in the United States. Cancer-specific curricula focused on HIC priority cancers, such as skin/melanoma, and did not represent the global cancer burden. Most (80%) curricula were developed for staff physicians and 73% focused on cancer screening. More than half (57%) of programs were delivered in person, with a shift toward online delivery over time. Less than half (46%) of programs were codeveloped with PCPs and 34% did not involve PCPs in the program design and development. Curricula were primarily developed to improve cancer knowledge, and 72 studies assessed multiple outcome measures. No studies included the top two levels of Bloom's taxonomy of learning (evaluating; creating).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first review to assess the current state of cancer curricula for PCPs with a global focus. This review shows that extant curricula are primarily developed in HICs, do not represent the global cancer burden, and focus on cancer screening. This review lays a foundation to advance the cocreation of curricula that are aligned to the global cancer burden.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Supplementary Information

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

Late-effect awareness and follow-up of cancer in general practice

OBJECTIVE

With increasing cancer incidence and survival rates, follow-up care becomes a major healthcare concern, placing increased demands on general practitioners (GPs). We explored GPs' awareness of late effects (LEs) after cancer treatment. Their degree of involvement and attitudes towards follow-up care was studied separately for solid cancers and Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Mailed questionnaire study in Norwegian general practice.

SUBJECTS

185 responding GPs with responsibility for HL survivors, more than 10 years since diagnosis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

All GPs reported some awareness of LEs. Increasing awareness of LEs was associated with female sex, being a specialist, having experience from hospital-based cancer care and familiarity with official guidelines on LEs after treatment. The majority of GPs were involved in follow-up care, which increased with patients' time since treatment and was associated with higher awareness of LEs. GPs with work experience in hospital-based cancer care were more likely to be engaged in HL follow-up. Most GPs were willing to provide follow-up care at some point after treatment. Older and more experienced GPs, and those satisfied with the collaboration with hospital specialists, were more likely to provide follow-up earlier.

CONCLUSION

GPs' awareness of LEs and their willingness to provide follow-up care were related to familiarity with guidelines and experience. GPs more involved in follow-up care also had higher knowledge of LEs. Distribution of guidelines on LEs and follow-up care, and improving collaboration with hospital specialists, might increase GPs' knowledge and willingness to become involved in follow-up care, especially early in their careers. GPs' involvement and attitude towards follow-up of survivors of common solid cancers and HL, a rare malignant disease, were similar.KEY POINTSNorwegian general practitioners (GPs) are involved in survivorship care after cancer treatment. We investigated their awareness of late effects (LEs), their involvement and their attitude towards follow-up care of solid cancers and Hodgkin's lymphoma. • GPs registered as specialists, aware of guidelines and with experience from hospital-based cancer care reported higher awareness of LEs.  • GPs with higher awareness of LEs were more frequently involved in follow-up care.  • GPs with longer experience in general practice were comfortable with follow-up care at an earlier stage after treatment.  • Results were similar for follow-up care of survivors of solid cancers and Hodgkin's lymphoma.

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

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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

Integrating primary care and childhood cancer survivorship care: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Improved treatment regimens have led to increased survival rates among childhood cancer survivors (CCS), and more than 84% of all children diagnosed with cancer will experience long-term survival or cure. Survivors are susceptible to late effects of cancer treatment often requiring lifelong follow-up care, as many of these conditions can be prevented or mitigated with surveillance. Integrating primary care (PC) and childhood cancer survivorship care can improve follow-up for survivors, however, little integrative research exists. This scoping review aims to: identify and describe existing models of care that integrate PC and childhood cancer survivorship care, examine the effectiveness of these models of care, and characterise the barriers and facilitators for the integration of PC for CCS.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A comprehensive empirical literature search of three electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase) was employed to identify potentially relevant citations on 1 October 2020. The population, independent variables/intervention, comparator, outcomes, timing, setting and study design/other limiters (PICOTSS) framework was used to inform protocol development. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and explanation will be used to report study findings. The search strategy will be completed again prior to publication to ensure recent empirical research is accounted for.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research is exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. Approval from a research ethics board for this study was not required as it does not involve human participants or unpublished secondary data. The findings from this scoping review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts, clinical conference presentations, professional networks and digital communications using social media platforms such as Twitter. This study has been registered with Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/92xbg.

Oncology and Primary Care Provider Views on Cancer Survivorship Care: Mind the Gap

CONTEXT

Coordination between oncology and primary care practices in cancer survivorship is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To identify cancer care coordination perceptions, knowledge, and practices in a sample of Oklahoma oncology care providers (ONCs) and primary care providers (PCPs) regarding post-treatment care of adult cancer survivors.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, statewide survey by mail/web link in 2014/5.

SETTING

PCPs identified through a primary care research network, primary care organization membership lists; ONCs identified through www.Healthgrades.com.

PARTICIPANTS

Contacts who were clinically active and seeing cancer patients were eligible. The final sample size included 101 ONCs and 58 PCPs who reported actively seeing cancer patients.

MEASURES

Responses to predominately Likert scale or ranked-order questions derived from the Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors.

ANALYSES

Chi square and t tests were performed to test bivariate associations between provider type and survey measures.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences (P < .05) between ONC and PCP perceptions were observed for several questions on communication between the 2 provider types, ONC perceptions of PCP ability to address survivorship care, and responsibilities for post-treatment care.

CONCLUSIONS

Highly discrepant perspectives between ONCs and PCPs regarding communications and responsibilities for survivorship care may lead to adverse health outcomes. Interventions aimed at improving care coordination for cancer survivors should define each provider group's responsibilities in survivorship care, and create structures and processes that foster clear channels of communication between ONC and PCP practices.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

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

#CardioOncology: Twitter chat as a mechanism for increasing awareness of heart health for cancer patients

Consideration of heart health for cancer survivors is increasingly important, as improved cancer survivorship has resulted in a growing number of survivors affected by cardiovascular disease. However, there is limited knowledge of cardio-oncology among both patients and a variety of health professionals. Thus, efforts are needed to increase awareness about cardio-oncology. Social media represents one potential opportunity to disseminate information about cardio-oncology to a large audience. We highlight one example of a social media educational/advocacy campaign conducted on Twitter (a "Twitter Chat") that garnered nearly 1.2 million impressions (views by Twitter users) in just 24 h. We provide both quantitative and qualitative data to support the efficacy of using Twitter for such educational/advocacy campaigns, and describe key features that contributed to its success. Twitter Chats inexpensively utilize innovative technology to provide education and foster community. Long-term studies are needed to understand whether Twitter Chats can change knowledge and behavior related to cardio-oncology.

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

PURPOSE

To care for the growing population of cancer survivors, health services worldwide must reconsider how to deliver care to people living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis. Shared care, defined as cancer care that is shared between specialist and primary care providers, is one model that has been investigated; however, practical guidance to support implementation is lacking. This systematic review aimed to explore facilitators and barriers to implementing shared cancer care and to develop practice and policy recommendations to support implementation.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in June 2019 across MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycINFO databases. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review question were extracted and synthesized following a mixed methods approach.

RESULTS

Thirteen papers were included in the review, 10 qualitative and three quantitative. Included articles were from Australia (n = 8), the USA (n = 3), and one each from the UK and the Netherlands. Sixteen themes were developed under four categories of patient, healthcare professional, process, and policy factors. Key themes included the perceived need for primary care provider training, having clearly defined roles for each healthcare provider, providing general practitioners with diagnostic and treatment summaries, as well as protocols or guidelines for follow-up care, ensuring rapid and accurate communication between providers, utilizing electronic medical records and survivorship care plans as communication tools, and developing consistent policy to reduce fragmentation across services.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for practice and policy were generated based on review findings that may support broader implementation of shared cancer care.

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.