Socioeconomic position, referral and attendance to rehabilitation after a cancer diagnosis: A population-based study in Copenhagen, Denmark 2010-2015

Are all cancer survivors included when using electronically administered patient reported outcomes in primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation? A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are being used frequently in clinical practice. PROs often serve several purposes, such as increasing patient involvement, assessing health status, and monitoring and improving the quality-of-care at an aggregated level. However, the lack of representative PRO-data may have implications for all these purposes. This study aims to assess the association of non-administration of (not sending an electronic invite to PRO) and non-response to (not responding to PRO) electronically administered PROs with social inequality in a primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation setting. Furthermore, it examines whether the workflows surrounding PRO have an impact on non-administration and non-response.

METHODS

This is a cross sectional study using routinely collected data from electronic health records and registers including cancer survivors (CSs) over 18 years booked for an initial consultation in a primary healthcare cancer rehabilitation setting using PROs for systematic health status assessment. During the study period two different PRO platforms were used, each associated with different workflows. Non-administration and non-response rates were calculated for sociodemographic characteristics for each PRO platform. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 1868 (platform 1) and 1446 (platform 2) CSCSs were booked for an initial consultation. Of these, 233 (12.5%) (platform 1) and 283 (19.6%) (platform 2) were not sent a PRO (non-administration). Among those who received a PRO, 157 (9.6%) on platform 1 and 140 (12.0%) on platform 2 did not respond (non-response). Non-administration of and non-response to PROs were significantly associated with lower socioeconomic status. Moreover, the workflows surrounding PROs seem to have an impact on non-inclusion in and non-response to PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-administration of and non-response to PROs in clinical practice is associated with determinants of social inequality. Clinical workflows and the PRO platforms used may potentially worsen this inequality. It is important to consider these implications when using PROs at both the individual and aggregated levels. A key aspect of implementing PROs in clinical practice is the ongoing focus on representativeness, including a focus on monitoring PRO administration and response.

Good cancer follow-up for socially disadvantaged patients in general practice? Perspectives from patients and general practitioners

One of the core principles of providing care in general practice is giving more to those who need it most. We investigate some of the complexities of this ambition in the context of cancer care for patients defined as socially disadvantaged by their general practitioner (GP). We do this by exploring how care is sought, how it is offered, and what expectations patients and GPs carry with them when receiving and providing cancer care in the Danish welfare state. We carried out semi-structured interviews with eight GPs and seven socially disadvantaged cancer patients living with different types and stages of cancer. The interviews focused on needs and challenges in cancer follow-up in general practice and were thematically coded. Drawing on theoretical concepts of morality and Nordic individualism, we point to how one of the main challenges in cancer care and follow-up is to figure out how the doctor-patient relationship should be established, practiced, and maintained. Both GPs and patients stressed the importance of the relationship, but how it should be practiced amidst social norms about being a patient, a citizen and how care-seeking should unfold seems less clear. In conclusion we argue that giving more to those who need it the most is a difficult and ill-defined task that is shaped by the cultural, social, and political expectations of both GPs and patients.

Reasons for non-participation in cancer rehabilitation: a scoping literature review

BACKGROUND

Rehabilitation plays an important role in addressing the many challenges of living with cancer, but a large proportion of people with cancer do not participate in available cancer rehabilitation. Hence, reasons for non-participation in cancer rehabilitation need to be explored.

OBJECTIVE

The present study undertakes a scoping review of research examining reasons for non-participation in cancer rehabilitation among people with cancer.

DESIGN

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus and CINAHL for articles published until July 2023. Included studies were hand searched for relevant references and citations.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Method: Studies with qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method design.

POPULATION

Studies targeting adults (> 18) living with cancer, not participating in rehabilitation. Program type: The review included all studies defining program as rehabilitation but excluded clinical trials.

OUTCOME

Studies examining reasons for non-participation in available rehabilitation.

DATA EXTRACTION

The extracted data included author(s)/year of publication, aim, population, information, rehabilitation type and main reasons for non-participation.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies were included (n = 3 quantitative, n = 2 qualitative, n = 4 mixed methods). Reasons for non-participation included physical, psychosocial and practical aspects. The main reason across studies was 'no need for public support' related to receiving sufficient support from family and friends. All studies focused on individual reasons, and structural conditions were rarely present.

CONCLUSION

Research within this field is sparse. Future research should explore how individual reasons for non-participation relate to structural conditions, especially among people in socially disadvantaged positions living with cancer.

Access, acceptance and adherence to cancer prehabilitation: a mixed-methods systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to better understand access to, acceptance of and adherence to cancer prehabilitation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, ProQuest Medical Library, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and grey literature were systematically searched for quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies published in English between January 2017 and June 2023. Screening, data extraction and critical appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently using Covidence™ systematic review software. Data were analysed and synthesised thematically to address the question 'What do we know about access, acceptance and adherence to cancer prehabilitation, particularly among socially deprived and minority ethnic groups?' The protocol is published on PROSPERO CRD42023403776 RESULTS: Searches identified 11,715 records, and 56 studies of variable methodological quality were included: 32 quantitative, 15 qualitative and nine mixed-methods. Analysis identified facilitators and barriers at individual and structural levels, and with interpersonal connections important for prehabilitation access, acceptance and adherence. No study reported analysis of facilitators and barriers to prehabilitation specific to people from ethnic minority communities. One study described health literacy as a barrier to access for people from socioeconomically deprived communities.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited empirical research of barriers and facilitators to inform improvement in equity of access to cancer prehabilitation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

To enhance the inclusivity of cancer prehabilitation, adjustments may be needed to accommodate individual characteristics and attention given to structural factors, such as staff training. Interpersonal connections are proposed as a fundamental ingredient for successful prehabilitation.

Social characteristics and social benefit use among premenopausal breast cancer survivors in Denmark: a population-based cohort study

PURPOSE

In 2020, one million women aged < 55 years were diagnosed with breast cancer globally. The impact of breast cancer and its treatments on these women's ability to work and need for social benefits may differ by social characteristics. We evaluated social benefit use following breast cancer by education and cohabitation.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study, including women aged 18-55 years diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in Denmark during 2002-2011. Statistics Denmark provided information on cohabitation, education, and social benefit use from 1 year pre-diagnosis to 10 years post-diagnosis. We calculated weekly proportions of self-support, unemployment, disability pension, flexi jobs, and sick leave according to education and cohabitation.

RESULTS

Of 5345 women, 81.8% were self-supporting, 4.5% received disability pensions, 1.6% had flexi jobs, 3.6% were on sick leave, and 5.5% were unemployed 1 year pre-diagnosis. Ten years post-diagnosis, the proportions were 69.0%, 13.0%, 10.5%, 3.4%, and 2.0% of 3663 survivors. Disability pensions and flexi jobs increased from 12.1 to 26.4% and 2.8 to 13.5% in women with short education, from 4.1 to 12.8% and 1.8 to 12.2% in women with medium education, and from 0.8 to 6.0% and 0.9 to 6.9% in longer educated. Disability pensions increased more in women living alone (7.8 to 19.9%), than in cohabiting women (3.6 to 11.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of social benefits reflecting lost ability to work was highest in less educated women and in women living alone.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Awareness of these groups is crucial when tailoring efforts to support work participation in cancer survivors.

Health-related quality of life, needs, and concerns among cancer survivors referred to rehabilitation in primary healthcare setting

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is a growing need for rehabilitation services beyond hospitals. This study aims to describe challenges faced by cancer survivors (CSs) referred for rehabilitation in primary healthcare, employing standardized scales measuring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and open-ended questions. Furthermore, the study explores the applicability of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in comprehensively understanding challenges encountered by CSs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study involves CSs referred for cancer rehabilitation in a primary healthcare setting, including those participating in PROs as a part of routine practice. HRQOL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framed the analysis of responses to open-ended questions 'what concerns you the most?' and 'what matters to you?'  Results: FACT-G showed the lowest scores for functional well-being (14.4) and emotional well-being (16.6), with higher scores for physical well-being (18.9) and social/family well-being (21.1). Responses to open-ended questions unveiled worries about everyday life and how cancer will impact family well-being presently and in the future. Furthermore, CSs reported a need to maintain normality and proactively address the challenges posed by the disease.

INTERPRETATION

CSs referred for rehabilitation in primary healthcare experience comprehensive challenges necessitating a holistic rehabilitation approach. This includes interventions supporting CSs in dealing with uncertainty, regaining a sense of control, and addressing family well-being concerns. When using PROs for need assessment, the combination of validated HRQOL scales and open-ended questions is crucial for an in-depth understanding of CSs' challenges.

Barriers and facilitators to cancer rehabilitation for patients with head and neck or lung cancer-a scoping review mapping structural and healthcare professionals' perspectives

PURPOSE

Rehabilitation can positively affect quality of life, functional status, and physiological status for patients with head and neck or lung cancer. However, barriers and facilitators regarding access, referral, and participation in rehabilitation have not been outlined in the literature either from a healthcare professional or from a structural perspective. Therefore, the objective of this paper was to identify and map barriers and facilitators from structural and healthcare professionals' perspectives in relation to access, referral, and participation in rehabilitation for patients with head and neck or lung cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two systematic searches were conducted in five databases mapping peer-reviewed research literature.

RESULTS

In total, 17 studies of 3918 potential sources were included. Seven themes were identified. Four themes concerned access: Understanding Patients' Resources; Collaboration Determining Access; Education, Knowledge, and Evidence Impact Access to Rehabilitation; and Resources Affecting Availability to Rehabilitation Services. Two themes concerned referral: Referral Criteria; and Elements Affecting Referral Pathway. One theme concerned participation: Factors Influencing Participation.

CONCLUSION

From structural and healthcare professionals' perspectives, barriers and facilitators impact access, referral and participation in rehabilitation. However, the findings on facilitators were limited; only one theme addressed participation and two findings concerned patients with low socioeconomic status.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONHealthcare professionals should be mindful that a diverse array of barriers and facilitators may impact the rehabilitation pathway for patients with head, neck, and lung cancer.Engagement by healthcare professionals and structural initiatives are needed to ensure comprehensive access to information concerning rehabilitation options.Local guidelines should be developed to prescribe methods for informing and guiding patients towards suitable rehabilitation options.It is important that healthcare professionals take the individual patient's resources into account when navigating aspects of access, referral, and participation in rehabilitation.

The use and timing of rehabilitation and palliative care to cancer patients, and the influence of social vulnerability - a population-based study

OBJECTIVES

To identify and investigate different cohorts of cancer patients' use of physical rehabilitation and specialised palliative care (SPC) services, focusing on patients with incurable cancer and the impact of social vulnerability.

METHODS

The sample originated from patients diagnosed during 2013-2018 and alive 1 January 2015. Use of physical rehabilitation and/or SPC units were identified from contacts registered in population-based administrative databases. Competing-risks regression models were applied to investigate disparities with regard to social vulnerability, disease duration, gender and age.

RESULTS

A total of 101 268 patients with cancer were included and 60 125 survived longer than 3 years after their diagnosis. Among the 41 143 patients, who died from cancer, 66%, survived less than 1 year, 23% survived from 1 to 2 years and 11% survived from 2 to 3 years. Contacts regarding physical rehabilitation services appeared in the entire cancer trajectory, whereas contacts regarding SPC showed a steep increase as time drew closer to death. The largest disparity was related to disease duration. Socially vulnerable patients had less contact with SPC, while a larger proportion of the socially vulnerable cancer survivors used rehabilitation, compared with the non-vulnerable patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a previously unseen detailed overview of the use of physical rehabilitation and/or SPC among patients with incurable cancer. The services appeared to overlap at a group level in the cancer trajectory, emphasising the importance of awareness with regard to coordination and combination of the services. Disparities between socially vulnerable or non-vulnerable patients were identified.

Ancillary Treatment Referrals and Visits After Breast Cancer Surgery in a Sociodemographically Diverse Population

BACKGROUND

Ancillary therapies with rehabilitative, palliative, and survivorship specialists mitigate adverse effects of breast cancer surgery. Existing data suggest that patients from disadvantaged backgrounds may be less likely to receive these services. This study aimed to assess variations in ancillary provider referrals and patient visits at a high-volume urban cancer center.

METHODS

Electronic health records of breast cancer surgical patients at the Yale-New Haven Health System between 2010 and 2017 were reviewed. The primary end points were postoperative referral to ancillary service providers and patient use of ancillary services (defined as attending ≥ 1 consultation). Associations between end points and demographic/disease variables were identified in uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The study identified 5496 patients: 2288 patients (41.6%) referred to ancillary services and 1572 patients (28.6%) who attended one or more consultations. Referrals were highest among the patients with Hispanic (57.5%) or black (54.9%) ancestry, no health insurance (57.6%), lowest percentage of high school degrees for the zip code area (50.5%), and poorest median income bracket (50.7%). Associations remained significant in the multivariable analysis (p < 0.05). Minority race remained associated with referrals in analyses of each ancillary service individually. Visits to ancillary specialists were greatest among the patients with private insurance (70.7%), highest percentage of high school degrees (72.8%), highest median household income (72.2%), and Hispanic ethnicity (73.5%). Highest median household income (odds ratio [OR] 1.45; p = 0.02) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 1.50; p = 0.05) remained associated in the multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In a well-resourced health system serving a demographically diverse population, traditional markers of poor health care access were associated with referral for ancillary treatment after breast cancer surgery but not with utilization of ancillary treatment. Health care access remains a critical barrier to adjunctive therapies that target postoperative morbidity and elevate quality of life.

Identification of socially vulnerable cancer patients - development of a register-based index (rSVI)

BACKGROUND

Social vulnerability is a complex construct which is beyond relying on single measures. If socially vulnerable patients should be identified, we need a composite measure capturing the patient's overall circumstances. This study presents the development of a social vulnerability index (rSVI) for cancer patients based on administrative data from population-based registers.

METHODS

All patients, who died from cancer within 5 years after the cancer diagnosis during 2013-2018 (n = 44,187), were identified and divided in four subcohorts according to survival; index cohort surviving 3-5 years (n = 3044 surviving 3-5 years), cohort 1 (n = 27,170 surviving < 1 year), cohort 2 (n = 9450 surviving 1-2 years), and cohort 3 (n = 4523 surviving 2-3 years). Variables from ten registries on health and social issues were linked to each individual patient. Variables of interest were weighted to construct the rSVI using the index-cohort. rSVI was subsequently tested on the three other cohorts for validation.

RESULTS

The rSVI included weighted values for marital status, ethnicity, education, income, unemployment, psychiatric comorbidity, and somatic comorbidity. The validity of the rSVI was supported by the expected trend in proportions of vulnerable patients when applied on the other cohorts. Single social measures appeared insufficient in identification of vulnerable patients when compared with the rSVI.

CONCLUSION

The rSVI provides a tool for identification of socially vulnerable cancer patients using administrative data. The index requires further validation in other patient groups and is tested against other measures of vulnerability. Future perspectives are to use the rSVI as predictor of advanced cancer patients' use of healthcare services.

Cancer rehabilitation and palliative care for socially vulnerable patients in Denmark: an exploration of practices and conceptualisations

Background:

Despite a tax-funded, needs-based organisation of the Danish health system, social inequality in cancer rehabilitation and palliative care (PC) has been noted repeatedly. Little is known about how best to improve access and participation in cancer rehabilitation and PC for socio-economically disadvantaged and socially vulnerable patients.

Aim:

To gather, synthesise and describe practice-orientated development studies presented in Danish-language publications and examine the underpinning conceptualisations of social inequality and vulnerability; explore related views of stakeholders working in the field.

Methods:

The study comprised a narrative review of Danish-language literature on practice-orientated development studies which address social inequality and vulnerability in cancer rehabilitation and PC and an online stakeholder consultation workshop with Danish professionals and academics working in the field.

Results:

Two themes characterise the included publications (n = 8): types of interventions; conceptualisations of social inequality and vulnerability; three themes were identified in the workshop data: focus and type of interventions; organisation of cancer care; and vulnerability of the healthcare system. The publications and the workshop participants (n = 12) favoured approaches which provide additional individualised resources throughout the cancer trajectory for this patient group. The terms social inequality and social vulnerability are largely used interchangeably, and associated with low income and no or little education yet qualified with multiple descriptors, which reflect the diverse socio-economic situations professionals encounter in cancer patients and their psychosocial needs.

Conclusion:

Addressing social inequality and vulnerability in cancer rehabilitation and PC in Denmark entails practical and conceptual challenges. Of importance is individualised support and the integration of rehabilitation and PC into standardised care pathways. To conceive of social vulnerability as a layered, dynamic, relational and contextual concept reflects current practice in identifying the diversity of cancer patients who may benefit from additional support in accessing and participating in rehabilitation and PC.

Underutilisation of Physical Rehabilitation Therapy by Cancer Patients in Korea: a Population-based Study of 958,928 Korean Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Advanced cancers are associated with more severe symptoms and greater impairment. Although most patients with metastatic cancer would benefit from rehabilitation, few patients receive appropriate rehabilitation therapy. We explored the use of rehabilitation therapy by cancer patients. Our data represented the entire population of Korea. The analyses were performed according to cancer type and stage.

METHODS

We extracted rehabilitation utilization data of patients newly diagnosed with cancer in the period of 2011-2015 from the Korea Central Cancer Registry, which is linked to the claims database of the National Health Insurance Service (n = 958,928).

RESULTS

The utilisation rate increased during the study period, from 6.0% (11,504) of 192,835 newly diagnosed patients in 2011 to 6.8% (12,455) of 183,084 newly diagnosed patients in 2015. Patients with central nervous system (28.4%) and bone (27.8%) cancer were most likely to undergo physical rehabilitation. The rehabilitation rate was higher in patients with metastatic than localised or regional cancer (8.7% vs. 5.3% vs. 5.5%).

CONCLUSION

This claims-based study revealed that rehabilitation therapy for cancer patients is underutilised in Korea. Although patients with metastasis underwent more intensive rehabilitation than patients with early stage cancer, those without brain and bone tumours (the treatment of which is covered by insurance) were less likely to use rehabilitation services. Further efforts to improve the use of rehabilitation would improve the outcomes of cancer patients.

Socioeconomic position and prognosis in premenopausal breast cancer: a population-based cohort study in Denmark

BACKGROUND

To investigate how socioeconomic position (SEP) influences the effectiveness of cancer-directed treatment in premenopausal breast cancer patients in terms of breast cancer recurrence and mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study nested in the ProBeCaRe (Predictors of Breast Cancer Recurrence) cohort (n = 5959). We identified all premenopausal women aged 18-55 years diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer and prescribed docetaxel-based chemotherapy in Denmark during 2007-2011. Population-based administrative registries provided data on SEP: marital status (married including registered partnership or single including divorced or widowed), cohabitation (cohabiting or living alone), education (low, intermediate, or high), income (low, medium, or high), and employment status (employed, unemployed, or health-related absenteeism). For each SEP measure, we computed incidence rates, cumulative incidence proportions (CIPs), and used Poisson regression to compute incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of recurrence and death. We stratified on estrogen receptor (ER) status/tamoxifen to evaluate interaction.

RESULTS

Our study cohort included 2616 women; 286 (CIP 13%) experienced recurrence and 223 (CIP 11%) died during follow-up (median 6.6 and 7.2 years, respectively). Single women had both increased 5-year risks of recurrence (IRR 1.45, 95% CI 1.11-1.89) and mortality (IRR 1.83, 95% CI 1.32-2.52). Furthermore, we observed increased 5-year mortality in women with low education (IRR 1.49, 95% CI 0.95-2.33), low income (IRR 1.37, 95% CI 0.83-2.28), unemployment (IRR 1.61, 95% CI 0.83-3.13), or health-related work absenteeism (IRR 1.80, 95% CI 1.14-2.82), but smaller or no increased risk of recurrence. These findings were especially evident among women with ER+ tumors prescribed tamoxifen. Overall analyses (follow-up max. 10 years) provided similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Low SEP in premenopausal women with non-metastatic breast cancer was associated with increased mortality, but not always recurrence. This suggests underdetection of recurrences in certain groups. Poor prognosis in women with low SEP, especially single women, may partly be explained by tamoxifen adherence.

Rehabilitation and palliative care for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with advanced cancer: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Rehabilitation and palliative care may play an important role in addressing the problems and needs perceived by socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with advanced cancer. However, no study has synthesized existing research on rehabilitation and palliative care for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with advanced cancer. The study aimed to map existing research of rehabilitation and palliative care for patients with advanced cancer who are socioeconomically disadvantaged.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A systematic literature search was performed in CINAHL, PubMed and EMBASE. Two reviewers independently assessed abstracts and full-text articles for eligibility and performed data extraction. Both qualitative and quantitative studies published between 2010 and 2019 were included if they addressed rehabilitation or palliative care for socioeconomically disadvantaged (adults ≥18 years) patients with advanced cancer. Socioeconomic disadvantage is defined by socioeconomic position (income, educational level and occupational status).

RESULTS

In total, 11 studies were included in this scoping review (138,152 patients and 45 healthcare providers) of which 10 were quantitative studies and 1 was a qualitative study. All included studies investigated the use of and preferences for palliative care, and none focused on rehabilitation. Two studies explored health professionals' perspectives on the delivery of palliative care.

CONCLUSION

Existing research within this research field is sparse. Future research should focus more on how best to reach and support socioeconomically disadvantaged people with advanced cancer in community-based rehabilitation and palliative care.

Determinants of adherence to physical cancer rehabilitation guidelines among cancer patients and cancer centers: a cross-sectional observational study

PURPOSE

To tailor implementation strategies that maximize adherence to physical cancer rehabilitation (PCR) guidelines, greater knowledge concerning determinants of adherence to those guidelines is needed. To this end, we assessed the determinants of adherence to PCR guidelines in the patient and cancer center.

METHODS

We investigated adherence variation of PCR guideline-based indicators regarding [1] screening with the Distress Thermometer (DT), [2] information provision concerning physical activity (PA) and physical cancer rehabilitation programs (PCRPs), [3] advice to take part in PA and PCRPs, [4] referral to PCRPs, [5] participation in PCRPs, and [6] PA uptake (PAU) in nine cancer centers. Furthermore, we assessed patient and cancer center characteristics as possible determinants of adherence. Regression analyses were used to determine associations between guideline adherence and patient and cancer center characteristics. In these analyses, we assumed the patient (level 1) nested within the cancer center (level 2).

RESULTS

Nine hundred and ninety-nine patients diagnosed with cancer between January 2014 and June 2015 were included. Of the 999 patients included in the study, 468 (47%) received screening with the DT and 427 (44%) received information provision concerning PA and PCRPs. Subsequently, 550 (56%) patients were advised to take part in PA and PCRPs, which resulted in 174 (18%) official referrals. Ultimately, 280 (29%) patients participated in PCRPs, and 446 (45%) started PAU. Screening with the DT was significantly associated with information provision concerning PA and PCRPs (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.47-2.71), advice to take part in PA and PCRPs (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.31-2.45), referral to PCRPs (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.18-2.78), participation in PCRPs (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.43-2.91), and PAU (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.25-2.29). Younger age, male gender, breast cancer as the tumor type, ≥2 cancer treatments, post-cancer treatment weight gain/loss, employment, and fatigue were determinants of guideline adherence. Less variation in scores of the indicators between the different cancer centers was found. This variation between centers was too low to detect any association between center characteristics with the indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of PCR guidelines is in need of improvement. We found determinants at the patient level associated with guideline-based PCR care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Implementation strategies that deal with the determinants of adherence to PCR guidelines might improve the implementation of PCR guidelines and the quality of life of cancer survivors.