A mixed-methods analysis of the capacity of the Patient-Centered Medical Home to implement care coordination services for cancer survivors

The association between a patient-centered quality of care index and self-efficacy among cancer survivors

PURPOSE

The number of cancer survivors in the US surpassed 18.1 million in 2022 and this number continues to grow. Patient self-efficacy, a patient's confidence in his or her ability to self-manage symptoms and healthcare concerns, has been linked to improved health outcomes. We thus set out to examine the association between a patient-centered care quality index and self-efficacy among cancer survivors.

METHODS

Data from 777 survivors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers at 32 cancer centers nationwide were collected 6 months after an initial survivorship visit. Patients completed surveys assessing patient-centered care (36 items under seven factors) and individual self-efficacy (eight items). Multiple linear regression was used to examine the association between patient-centered care and patient self-efficacy, adjusting for demographics, cancer-related characteristics, and organizational characteristics of high-quality patient-centered survivorship care.

RESULTS

In descriptive analyses, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic or cancer-related characteristics between cancer survivors by quality of patient-centered care. In regression models, a one-unit increase in patient-centered care was associated with a 0.23 (95% CI 0.14-0.32) increase in mean self-efficacy compared to low quality of patient-centered care when adjusting for demographics, cancer-related characteristics, and indicators of high-quality survivorship care. Individually, four of the seven factors of quality patient-centered care were statistically significantly associated with greater self-efficacy. Having a medical home was associated with the greatest increase in self-efficacy among survivors.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that higher quality patient-centered care is associated with greater cancer survivor self-efficacy. Given that self-efficacy is correlated with improved health outcomes and quality of life, this finding further supports the importance of high-quality patient-centered survivorship care.

IMPLICATIONS OF CANCER SURVIVORS

High-quality patient-centered survivorship care was associated with higher patient self-efficacy. This association should further be explored among cancer survivors with diverse characteristics.

Adapting and implementing breast cancer follow-up in primary care: protocol for a mixed methods hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized study

BACKGROUND

Advances in detection and treatment for breast cancer have led to an increase in the number of individuals managing significant late and long-term treatment effects. Primary care has a role in caring for patients with a history of cancer, yet there is little guidance on how to effectively implement survivorship care evidence into primary care delivery.

METHODS

This protocol describes a multi-phase, mixed methods, stakeholder-driven research process that prioritizes actionable, evidence-based primary care improvements to enhance breast cancer survivorship care by integrating implementation and primary care transformation frameworks: the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework and the Practice Change Model (PCM). Informed by depth interviews and a four round Delphi panel with diverse stakeholders from primary care and oncology, we will implement and evaluate an iterative clinical intervention in a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized design in twenty-six primary care practices. Multi-component implementation strategies will include facilitation, audit and feedback, and learning collaboratives. Ongoing data collection and analysis will be performed to optimize adoption of the intervention. The primary clinical outcome to test effectiveness is comprehensive breast cancer follow-up care. Implementation will be assessed using mixed methods to explore how organizational and contextual variables affect adoption, implementation, and early sustainability for provision of follow-up care, symptom, and risk management activities at six- and 12-months post implementation.

DISCUSSION

Study findings are poised to inform development of scalable, high impact intervention processes to enhance long-term follow-up care for patients with a history of breast cancer in primary care. If successful, next steps would include working with a national primary care practice-based research network to implement a national dissemination study. Actionable activities and processes identified could also be applied to development of organizational and care delivery interventions for follow-up care for other cancer sites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on June 2, 2022: NCT05400941.

Healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of primary healthcare integration: a scoping review of qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

Primary healthcare (PHC) integration has been promoted globally as a tool for health sector reform and universal health coverage (UHC), especially in low-resource settings. However, for a range of reasons, implementation and impact remain variable. PHC integration, at its simplest, can be considered a way of delivering PHC services together that sometimes have been delivered as a series of separate or 'vertical' health programmes. Healthcare workers are known to shape the success of implementing reform interventions. Understanding healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration can therefore provide insights into the role healthcare workers play in shaping implementation efforts and the impact of PHC integration. However, the heterogeneity of the evidence base complicates our understanding of their role in shaping the implementation, delivery, and impact of PHC integration, and the role of contextual factors influencing their responses.

OBJECTIVES

To map the qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of PHC integration to characterise the evidence base, with a view to better inform future syntheses on the topic.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 28 July 2020. We did not search for grey literature due to the many published records identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies with qualitative and mixed methods designs that reported on healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration from any country. We excluded settings other than PHC and community-based health care, participants other than healthcare workers, and interventions broader than healthcare services. We used translation support from colleagues and Google Translate software to screen non-English records. Where translation was not feasible we categorised these records as studies awaiting classification.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For data extraction, we used a customised data extraction form containing items developed using inductive and deductive approaches. We performed independent extraction in duplicate for a sample on 10% of studies allowed for sufficient agreement to be reached between review authors. We analysed extracted data quantitatively by counting the number of studies per indicator and converting these into proportions with additional qualitative descriptive information. Indicators included descriptions of study methods, country setting, intervention type, scope and strategies, implementing healthcare workers, and client target population.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 184 studies for analysis based on 191 included papers. Most studies were published in the last 12 years, with a sharp increase in the last five years. Studies mostly employed methods with cross-sectional qualitative design (mainly interviews and focus group discussions), and few used longitudinal or ethnographic (or both) designs. Studies covered 37 countries, with close to an even split in the proportions of high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There were gaps in the geographical spread for both HICs and LMICs and some countries were more dominant, such as the USA for HICs, South Africa for middle-income countries, and Uganda for low-income countries. Methods were mainly cross-sectional observational studies with few longitudinal studies. A minority of studies used an analytical conceptual model to guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of the integration study. The main finding was the various levels of diversity found in the evidence base on PHC integration studies that examined healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences. The review identified six different configurations of health service streams that were being integrated and these were categorised as: mental and behavioural health; HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and sexual reproductive health; maternal, women, and child health; non-communicable diseases; and two broader categories, namely general PHC services, and allied and specialised services. Within the health streams, the review mapped the scope of the interventions as full or partial integration. The review mapped the use of three different integration strategies and categorised these as horizontal integration, service expansion, and service linkage strategies. The wide range of healthcare workers who participated in the implementation of integration interventions was mapped and these included policymakers, senior managers, middle and frontline managers, clinicians, allied healthcare professionals, lay healthcare workers, and health system support staff. We mapped the range of client target populations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review provides a systematic, descriptive overview of the heterogeneity in qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experience of PHC integration, pointing to diversity with regard to country settings; study types; client populations; healthcare worker populations; and intervention focus, scope, and strategies. It would be important for researchers and decision-makers to understand how the diversity in PHC integration intervention design, implementation, and context may influence how healthcare workers shape PHC integration impact. The classification of studies on the various dimensions (e.g. integration focus, scope, strategy, and type of healthcare workers and client populations) can help researchers to navigate the way the literature varies and for specifying potential questions for future qualitative evidence syntheses.

Healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of primary healthcare integration: a scoping review of qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

Primary healthcare (PHC) integration has been promoted globally as a tool for health sector reform and universal health coverage (UHC), especially in low-resource settings. However, for a range of reasons, implementation and impact remain variable. PHC integration, at its simplest, can be considered a way of delivering PHC services together that sometimes have been delivered as a series of separate or 'vertical' health programmes. Healthcare workers are known to shape the success of implementing reform interventions. Understanding healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration can therefore provide insights into the role healthcare workers play in shaping implementation efforts and the impact of PHC integration. However, the heterogeneity of the evidence base complicates our understanding of their role in shaping the implementation, delivery, and impact of PHC integration, and the role of contextual factors influencing their responses.

OBJECTIVES

To map the qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of PHC integration to characterise the evidence base, with a view to better inform future syntheses on the topic.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 28 July 2020. We did not search for grey literature due to the many published records identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies with qualitative and mixed methods designs that reported on healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration from any country. We excluded settings other than PHC and community-based health care, participants other than healthcare workers, and interventions broader than healthcare services. We used translation support from colleagues and Google Translate software to screen non-English records. Where translation was not feasible we categorised these records as studies awaiting classification.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For data extraction, we used a customised data extraction form containing items developed using inductive and deductive approaches. We performed independent extraction in duplicate for a sample on 10% of studies allowed for sufficient agreement to be reached between review authors. We analysed extracted data quantitatively by counting the number of studies per indicator and converting these into proportions with additional qualitative descriptive information. Indicators included descriptions of study methods, country setting, intervention type, scope and strategies, implementing healthcare workers, and client target population.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 184 studies for analysis based on 191 included papers. Most studies were published in the last 12 years, with a sharp increase in the last five years. Studies mostly employed methods with cross-sectional qualitative design (mainly interviews and focus group discussions), and few used longitudinal or ethnographic (or both) designs. Studies covered 37 countries, with close to an even split in the proportions of high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There were gaps in the geographical spread for both HICs and LMICs and some countries were more dominant, such as the USA for HICs, South Africa for middle-income countries, and Uganda for low-income countries. Methods were mainly cross-sectional observational studies with few longitudinal studies. A minority of studies used an analytical conceptual model to guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of the integration study. The main finding was the various levels of diversity found in the evidence base on PHC integration studies that examined healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences. The review identified six different configurations of health service streams that were being integrated and these were categorised as: mental and behavioural health; HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and sexual reproductive health; maternal, women, and child health; non-communicable diseases; and two broader categories, namely general PHC services, and allied and specialised services. Within the health streams, the review mapped the scope of the interventions as full or partial integration. The review mapped the use of three different integration strategies and categorised these as horizontal integration, service expansion, and service linkage strategies. The wide range of healthcare workers who participated in the implementation of integration interventions was mapped and these included policymakers, senior managers, middle and frontline managers, clinicians, allied healthcare professionals, lay healthcare workers, and health system support staff. We mapped the range of client target populations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review provides a systematic, descriptive overview of the heterogeneity in qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experience of PHC integration, pointing to diversity with regard to country settings; study types; client populations; healthcare worker populations; and intervention focus, scope, and strategies. It would be important for researchers and decision-makers to understand how the diversity in PHC integration intervention design, implementation, and context may influence how healthcare workers shape PHC integration impact. The classification of studies on the various dimensions (e.g. integration focus, scope, strategy, and type of healthcare workers and client populations) can help researchers to navigate the way the literature varies and for specifying potential questions for future qualitative evidence syntheses.

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.

A Novel Mixed Methods Approach Combining Geospatial Mapping and Qualitative Inquiry to Identify Multilevel Policy Targets: The Focused Rapid Assessment Process (fRAP) Applied to Cancer Survivorship

Multi-level perspectives across communities, medical systems and policy environments are needed, but few methods are available for health services researchers with limited resources. We developed a mixed method health policy approach, the focused Rapid Assessment Process (fRAP), that is designed to uncover multi-level modifiable barriers and facilitators contributing to public health issues. We illustrate with a study applying fRAP to the issue of cancer survivorship care. Through this multi-level investigation we identified two major modifiable areas impacting high-quality cancer survivorship care: 1) the importance of cancer survivorship guidelines/data, 2) the need for improved oncology-primary care relationships. This article contributes to the mixed methods literature by coupling geospatial mapping to qualitative rapid assessment to efficiently identify policy change targets.

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.

Benefits of weight loss programs for breast cancer survivors: a systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Obesity and weight gain have been associated with poor disease-specific and health-related outcomes in breast cancer survivors (BCS). But the benefits of weight loss in managing BCS have not been elucidated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the beneficial effects of weight loss programs in randomized controlled trials on BCS.

METHODS

We searched English databases PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Chinese databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Weipu Information Chinese Periodical Service Platform (VIP), China Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed), and Wanfang from the inception to January 2021 and collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of weight loss programs for BCS. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. The data synthesis was performed on RevMan (version 5.3), and the publication bias was calculated with STATA (version 15.1).

RESULTS

Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The current study showed that diet and exercise interventions resulted in significant improvements in body weight (MD =  - 4.43 kg, 95%CI: - 6.23 to - 2.63, P < 0.00001), waist circumference (MD =  - 2.81 cm, 95%CI: - 4.37 to - 1.26, P = 0.004), hip circumference (MD =  - 3.01 cm, 95%CI: - 4.24 to - 1.77, P < 0.0001), body mass index (MD =  - 1.69 kg/m², 95%CI: - 2.16 to - 1.21, P < 0.00001), systolic blood pressure (MD =  - 12.12 mmHg, 95%CI: - 18.97 to - 5.27), p = 0.0005), C-reactive protein (MD =  - 1.83 mg/L, 95% CI: - 2.74 to - 0.91, p < 0.0001), body fat (MD =  - 1.19 kg, 95%CI: - 1.75 to - 0.63, P < 0.001), fat mass (MD =  - 2.29 kg, 95%CI: - 3.12 to - 1.46, P < 0.0001), and lean body mass (MD =  - 2.15 kg, 95%CI: - 3.66 to - 0.65, P = 0.005). Alternatively, compared with the effects of control interventions, weight loss programs did not affect fat-free mass, total cholesterol, low-density leptin cholesterol, glucose, insulin, and leptin (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This review summarizes the benefits of weight loss programs for BCS. The results indicated that weight loss programs could significantly improve specific anthropometric outcomes but not affect biochemical indicators. Researchers should tailor weight loss interventions to the body fat status of BCS. Evidence to support the translation of effective weight loss intervention programs into wider-scale implementation is needed to be part of routine survivorship care.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02362750, 13 February 2015

Supplementary Information

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

Cancer Survivorship Care Roles for Primary Care Physicians

PURPOSE

Despite a burgeoning population of cancer survivors and pending shortages of oncology services, clear definitions and systematic approaches for engaging primary care in cancer survivorship are lacking. We sought to understand how primary care clinicians perceive their role in delivering care to cancer survivors.

METHODS

We conducted digitally recorded interviews with 38 clinicians in 14 primary care practices that had national reputations as workforce innovators. Interviews took place during intense case study data collection and explored clinicians' perspectives regarding their role in cancer survivorship care. We analyzed verbatim transcripts using an inductive and iterative immersion-crystallization process.

RESULTS

Divergent views exist regarding primary care's role in cancer survivor care with a lack of coherence about the concept of survivorship. A few clinicians believed any follow-up care after acute cancer treatment was oncology's responsibility; however, most felt cancer survivor care was within their purview. Some primary care clinicians considered cancer survivors as a distinct population; others felt cancer survivors were like any other patient with a chronic disease. In further interpretative analysis, we discovered a deeply ingrained philosophy of whole-person care that creates a professional identity dilemma for primary care clinicians when faced with rapidly changing specialized knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

This study exposes an emerging identity crisis for primary care that goes beyond cancer survivorship care. Facilitated national conversations might help specialists and primary care develop knowledge translation platforms to support the prioritizing, integrating, and personalizing functions of primary care for patients with highly complicated issues requiring specialized knowledge.

Beyond checkboxes: A qualitative assessment of physicians' experiences providing care in a patient-centred medical home

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

The patient-centred medical home (PCMH) is an innovative approach to health care reform. Despite a well-established process for recognizing PCMH practices, fidelity to, and/or adaptation of, the PCMH model can limit health care and population health improvements. This study explored the connection between fidelity/adaptation to the PCMH model with implementation successes and challenges through the experiences of family and internal medicine PCMH physicians.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted at two academic PCMH clinics with faculty and resident physicians. Data were transcribed and coded on the basis of an a priori code list. Together, the authors reviewed text and furthered the analysis process to reach final interpretation of the data.

RESULTS

Ten faculty and nine resident physicians from the Family Care Centre (FCC; n = 11) and the Internal Medicine Clinic (IMC; n = 8) were interviewed. Both FCC and IMC physicians spoke positively about their clinic's adherence to the PCMH model of enhanced access to care, coordinated/integrated care, and improvements in quality and safety through data collection and documentation. However, physicians highlighted inadequate staffing and clinic hours. FCC physicians also discussed the challenge of providing high-quality care amidst differences in coverage between payers.

CONCLUSION

There remains significant variability in PCMH characteristics across the United States and Canada. This qualitative analysis uncovered factors contributing to fidelity/adaptation to the PCMH model in two academic PCMH clinics. For the PCMH to achieve the Triple Aim promise of improved patient health and experience at a reduced cost, policy must support fidelity to core elements of the PCMH.

Understanding primary care-oncology relationships within a changing healthcare environment

Background

Management of care transitions from primary care into and out of oncology is critical for optimal care of cancer patients and cancer survivors. There is limited understanding of existing primary care-oncology relationships within the context of the changing health care environment.

Methods

Through a comparative case study of 14 innovative primary care practices throughout the United States (U.S.), we examined relationships between primary care and oncology settings to identify attributes contributing to strengthened relationships in diverse settings. Field researchers observed practices for 10–12 days, recording fieldnotes and conducting interviews. We created a reduced dataset of all text related to primary care-oncology relationships, and collaboratively identified patterns to characterize these relationships through an inductive “immersion/crystallization” analysis process.

Results

Nine of the 14 practices discussed having either formal or informal primary care-oncology relationships. Nearly all formal primary care-oncology relationships were embedded within healthcare systems. The majority of private, independent practices had more informal relationships between individual primary care physicians and specific oncologists. Practices with formal relationships noted health system infrastructure that facilitates transfer of patient information and timely referrals. Practices with informal relationships described shared commitment, trust, and rapport with specific oncologists. Regardless of relationship type, challenges reported by primary care settings included lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities during cancer treatment and beyond.

Conclusions

With the rapid transformation of U.S. healthcare towards system ownership of primary care practices, efforts are needed to integrate strengths of informal primary care-oncology relationships in addition to formal system driven relationships.

Improving Interorganizational Coordination Between Primary Care and Oncology: Adapting a Chronic Care Management Model for Patients With Cancer

The objective of this study was to explore the implementation of a payment and delivery system innovation to improve coordination and communication between primary care and oncology. We employed a qualitative case study approach, conducting interviews (n = 18), and reviewing archival materials. Chronic care coordinators and the cancer center social worker acted as boundary spanners. The chronic care coordinator role built on medical home infrastructure, applying the chronic care model to cancer care. Coordination from primary care to oncology became more routinized, with information sharing prompted by specific events. These new boundary spanner roles enabled greater coordination around uncertain and interdependent tasks. Recommendations for scaling up include the following: establish systematic approaches to learning from implementation, leverage existing capacity for scalability, and attend to the content and purpose of information sharing.

Cancer care coordination: opportunities for healthcare delivery research

In this commentary, we discuss opportunities to explore issues related to care coordination at three points on the cancer care continuum: (1) screening, particularly coordinating follow-up for abnormal findings, (2) active treatment, particularly challenges for patients with multiple chronic conditions, and (3) survivorship, particularly issues related to facilitating shared care between oncology and primary care. For each point on the continuum, we briefly summarize some of the important coordination issues and discuss potential avenues for future research in the context of existing evidence.