1
|
Al-Monajjed R, Albers P, Droop J, Fugmann D, Noldus J, Palisaar RJ, Ritter M, Ellinger J, Krausewitz P, Truß M, Hadaschik B, Grünwald V, Schrader AJ, Papavassilis P, Ernstmann N, Schellenberger B, Moritz A, Kowalski C, Hellmich M, Heiden P, Hagemeier A, Horenkamp-Sonntag D, Giessing M, Pauler L, Dieng S, Peters M, Feick G, Karger A. PRO-P: evaluating the effect of electronic patient-reported outcome measures monitoring compared with standard care in prostate cancer patients undergoing surgery-study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2024; 25:754. [PMID: 39533412 PMCID: PMC11556073 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08579-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2024] [Accepted: 10/24/2024] [Indexed: 11/16/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND With over 65,000 new cases per year in Germany, prostate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer in men in Germany. Localized PC is often treated by radical prostatectomy and has a very good prognosis. Postoperative quality of life (QoL) is significantly influenced by the side effects of surgery. One possible approach to improve QoL is postoperative symptom monitoring using ePROMs (electronic patient-reported outcome measures) to accurately identify any need for support. METHODS The PRO-P ("Influence of ePROMS in surgical therapy of PC on the postoperative course") study is a randomized controlled trial employing 1:1 randomization at 6 weeks postoperatively, involving 260 patients with incontinence (≥ 1 pad/day) at six participating centers. Recruitment is planned for 1 year with subsequent 1-year follow-up. PRO-monitoring using domains of EPIC-26, psychological burden, and QoL are assessed 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 52 weeks postoperatively. Exceeding predefined PRO-score cutoffs triggers an alert at the center, prompting patient contact, medical consultation, and potential interventions. The primary endpoint is urinary continence. Secondary endpoints refer to EPIC-26 domains, psychological distress, and QoL. Aspects of feasibility, effect, and implementation of the intervention will be investigated within the framework of a qualitative process evaluation. DISCUSSION PRO-P investigates the effect on postoperative symptom monitoring of a structured follow-up using ePROMs in the first year after prostatectomy. It is one of the first studies in cancer surgery investigating PRO-monitoring and its putative applicability to routine care. Patient experiences with intensified monitoring of postoperative symptoms and reflective counseling will be examined in order to improve primarily urinary continence, and secondly other burdens of physical and psychological symptoms, quality-of-life, and patient competence. The potential applicability of the intervention in clinical practice is facilitated by IT adaption to the certification standards of the German Cancer Society and the integration of the ePROMs survey via a joint patient portal. Positive outcomes could readily translate this complex intervention into routine clinical care. PRO-P might improve urinary incontinence and QoL in patients with radical prostatectomy through the structured use of ePROMs. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05644821. Registered on 09 December 2022.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rouvier Al-Monajjed
- Department of Urology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany and Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen, Bonn, Cologne, Düsseldorf (CIO-ABCD, Germany), Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Peter Albers
- Department of Urology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany and Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen, Bonn, Cologne, Düsseldorf (CIO-ABCD, Germany), Düsseldorf, Germany
- Division of Personalized Early Detection of Prostate Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Johanna Droop
- Department of Urology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany and Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen, Bonn, Cologne, Düsseldorf (CIO-ABCD, Germany), Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Dominik Fugmann
- Clinical Institute for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany and Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen, Bonn, Cologne, Düsseldorf (CIO-ABCD, Germany), Düsseldorf, Germany.
| | - Joachim Noldus
- Department of Urology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | - Rein-Jüri Palisaar
- Department of Urology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | - Manuel Ritter
- Department of Adult and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany and Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen, Bonn, Cologne, Düsseldorf (CIO-ABCD, Germany), Bonn, Germany
| | - Jörg Ellinger
- Department of Adult and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany and Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen, Bonn, Cologne, Düsseldorf (CIO-ABCD, Germany), Bonn, Germany
| | - Philipp Krausewitz
- Department of Adult and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany and Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen, Bonn, Cologne, Düsseldorf (CIO-ABCD, Germany), Bonn, Germany
| | - Michael Truß
- Department of Urology, Klinikum Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
| | - Boris Hadaschik
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Viktor Grünwald
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
- Department for Medical Oncology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Andres-Jan Schrader
- Department of Adult and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
| | - Philipp Papavassilis
- Department of Adult and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
| | - Nicole Ernstmann
- Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), Chair of Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Barbara Schellenberger
- Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), Chair of Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Anna Moritz
- Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), Chair of Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Christoph Kowalski
- Department of Certification - Health Services Research, German Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany
| | - Martin Hellmich
- Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology (IMSB), Medical Faculty and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Pierce Heiden
- Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology (IMSB), Medical Faculty and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Anna Hagemeier
- Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology (IMSB), Medical Faculty and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | | | - Markus Giessing
- Department of Urology, Kliniken Maria Hilf, Mönchengladbach, Germany
| | | | | | | | - Günter Feick
- Federal Prostate Cancer Self-Help, BPS, Bonn, Germany
| | - André Karger
- Clinical Institute for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany and Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen, Bonn, Cologne, Düsseldorf (CIO-ABCD, Germany), Düsseldorf, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sherlaw-Johnson C, Georghiou T, Reed S, Hutchings R, Appleby J, Bagri S, Crellin N, Kumpunen S, Lobont C, Negus J, Ng PL, Oung C, Spencer J, Ramsay A. Investigating innovations in outpatient services: a mixed-methods rapid evaluation. HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE DELIVERY RESEARCH 2024; 12:1-162. [PMID: 39331466 DOI: 10.3310/vgqd4611] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/28/2024]
Abstract
Background Within outpatient services, a broad range of innovations are being pursued to better manage care and reduce unnecessary appointments. One of the least-studied innovations is Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, which allows patients to book appointments if and when they need them, rather than follow a standard schedule. Objectives To use routine national hospital data to identify innovations in outpatient services implemented, in recent years, within the National Health Service in England. To carry out a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation and impact of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. Methods The project was carried out in four sequential workstreams: (1) a rapid scoping review of outpatient innovations; (2) the application of indicator saturation methodology for scanning national patient-level data to identify potentially successful local interventions; (3) interviews with hospitals identified in workstream 2; and (4) a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. The evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up comprised an evidence review, interviews with 36 clinical and operational staff at 5 National Health Service acute trusts, a workshop with staff from 13 National Health Service acute trusts, interviews with four patients, analysis of national and local data, and development of an evaluation guide. Results Using indicator saturation, we identified nine services with notable changes in follow-up to first attendance ratios. Of three sites interviewed, two queried the data findings and one attributed the change to a clinical assessment service. Models of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up varied widely between hospital and clinical specialty, with a significant degree of variation in the approach to patient selection, patient monitoring and discharge. The success of implementation was dependent on several factors, for example, clinical condition, staff capacity and information technology systems. From the analysis of national data, we found evidence of an association between greater use of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and a lower frequency of outpatient attendance within 15 out of 29 specialties and higher frequency of outpatient attendance within 7 specialties. Four specialties had less frequent emergency department visits associated with increasing Patient-Initiated Follow-Up rates. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was viewed by staff and the few patients we interviewed as a positive intervention, although there was varied impact on individual staff roles and workload. It is important that sites and services undertake their own evaluations of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. To this end we have developed an evaluation guide to support trusts with data collection and methods. Limitations The Patient-Initiated Follow-Up evaluation was affected by a lack of patient-level data showing who is on a Patient-Initiated Follow-Up pathway. Engagement with local services was also challenging, given the pressures facing sites and staff. Patient recruitment was low, which affected the ability to understand experiences of patients directly. Conclusions The study provides useful insights into the evolving national outpatient transformation policy and for local practice. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is often perceived as a positive intervention for staff and patients, but the impact on individual outcomes, health inequalities, wider patient experience, workload and capacity is still uncertain. Future research Further research should include patient-level analysis to determine clinical outcomes for individual patients on Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and health inequalities, and more extensive investigation of patient experiences. Study registration This study is registered with the Research Registry (UIN: researchregistry8864). Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/17) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Sarah Reed
- Research and Policy, The Nuffield Trust, London, UK
| | | | - John Appleby
- Research and Policy, The Nuffield Trust, London, UK
| | - Stuti Bagri
- Research and Policy, The Nuffield Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Stephanie Kumpunen
- Research and Policy, The Nuffield Trust, London, UK
- Patient and Public Representative
| | - Cyril Lobont
- Research and Policy, The Nuffield Trust, London, UK
| | - Jenny Negus
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Camille Oung
- Research and Policy, The Nuffield Trust, London, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Pradhan P, Sharman AR, Palme CE, Elliott MS, Clark JR, Venchiarutti RL. Models of survivorship care in patients with head and neck cancer in regional, rural, and remote areas: a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv 2024:10.1007/s11764-024-01643-x. [PMID: 39031309 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-024-01643-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2024] [Accepted: 07/04/2024] [Indexed: 07/22/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Rural people with head and neck cancers (HNC) are likely to experience poorer health outcomes due to limited access to health services, so many benefit from models of care that account for rurality. The aim of this review was to synthesise literature on models of care in this population. METHODS Studies were identified using seven databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, Medline, and Web of Science. Studies that tested or reported a model of care in rural HNC survivors were included. Data on characteristics and outcomes of the models were synthesised according to the domains in the Cancer Survivorship Care Quality Framework, and study quality was appraised. RESULTS Seventeen articles were included. Eight were randomised controlled trials (seven with a control group and one single-arm study). Three models were delivered online, nine via telehealth, and five in-person. Majority were led by nurses and allied health specialists and most addressed management of physical (n = 9) and psychosocial effects (n = 6), while only a few assessed implementation outcomes such as cost-effectiveness. None evaluated the management of chronic health conditions. CONCLUSION Positive outcomes were reported for domains of survivorship care that were measured; however, further evaluation of models of care for rural people with HNC is needed to assess effectiveness across all domains of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS Rural cancer survivors are a diverse population with unique needs. Alternative models of care such as shared care, or models personalised to the individual, could be considered to reduce disparities in access to care and outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Poorva Pradhan
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ashleigh R Sharman
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Carsten E Palme
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
- Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Michael S Elliott
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
- Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jonathan R Clark
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
- Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
- Royal Prince Alfred Institute of Academic Surgery, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rebecca L Venchiarutti
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Jefford M, Chan RJ, Emery JD. Shared Care Is an Appropriate Model for Many Cancer Survivors. J Clin Oncol 2024; 42:2105-2106. [PMID: 38498810 DOI: 10.1200/jco.23.02683] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2023] [Accepted: 01/23/2024] [Indexed: 03/20/2024] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Jefford
- Michael Jefford, MBBS, MPH, MHlthServMt, PhD, FRACP, Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Raymond J. Chan, RN, PhD, FACN, FAAN, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; and Jon D. Emery, MBBCh, MRCGP, FRACGP, DPhil, Centre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Raymond J Chan
- Michael Jefford, MBBS, MPH, MHlthServMt, PhD, FRACP, Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Raymond J. Chan, RN, PhD, FACN, FAAN, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; and Jon D. Emery, MBBCh, MRCGP, FRACGP, DPhil, Centre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jon D Emery
- Michael Jefford, MBBS, MPH, MHlthServMt, PhD, FRACP, Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Raymond J. Chan, RN, PhD, FACN, FAAN, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; and Jon D. Emery, MBBCh, MRCGP, FRACGP, DPhil, Centre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hayes BD, Young HG, Atrchian S, Vis-Dunbar M, Stork MJ, Pandher S, Samper S, McCorquodale S, Loader A, Voss C. 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. J Cancer Surviv 2024; 18:352-365. [PMID: 36376712 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-022-01268-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2022] [Accepted: 10/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian D Hayes
- Southern Medical Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, Canada
| | - Hannah G Young
- Southern Medical Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, Canada
| | - Siavash Atrchian
- BC Cancer, Kelowna, Canada
- Department of Surgery, Division of Radiation Oncology and Developmental Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | | | - Matthew J Stork
- Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 1088 Discovery Avenue, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada
| | - Satvir Pandher
- Department of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Sofia Samper
- Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 1088 Discovery Avenue, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada
| | - Sarah McCorquodale
- Southern Medical Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, Canada
- Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 1088 Discovery Avenue, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada
| | | | - Christine Voss
- Southern Medical Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, Canada.
- Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 1088 Discovery Avenue, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada.
- Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Jeon KH, Shin DW, Lee JW, Baek HJ, Chung NG, Sung KW, Song YM. Parent caregivers' preferences and satisfaction with currently provided childhood cancer survivorship care. J Cancer Surviv 2024; 18:617-630. [PMID: 36396908 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-022-01287-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2022] [Accepted: 10/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this study was to investigate the level of satisfaction of parent caregivers of childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) with currently provided survivorship care and their preferences for survivorship care provider. METHODS Study subjects were parent caregivers recruited at three hospitals in Korea. Study data were collected from self-administered questionnaires and medical records. We assessed parent caregivers' levels of satisfaction with specific survivorship care contents and preferred types of survivorship care provider among oncologists, primary care physicians (PCPs), and institutional general physicians (IGPs). Factors associated with parent caregivers' preferences for survivorship care provider were evaluated by multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS 680 parent caregivers (mother 62.1% and father 37.9%) of 487 CCSs (mean age at diagnosis: 6.9 ± 5.1 years; mean time since treatment completion 5.4 ± 4.4 years) were included. Parent caregivers' dissatisfaction was the highest with screening for second primary cancer, followed by psychosocial problem management. Higher educational level of parent caregiver, parent caregiver's higher level of dissatisfaction with currently provided care, higher age of CCSs at cancer diagnosis, history of receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and longer time lapse after cancer treatment were significantly associated with parent caregivers' higher preference for PCPs or IGPs than oncologists. Parent caregiver's multiple comorbidities and higher fear of cancer recurrence were associated with parent caregivers' higher preference for oncologists than PCPs or IGPs. Around 80% of parent caregivers recognized that a shared care system was helpful for promoting the health of CCSs. CONCLUSION Parent caregivers were substantially dissatisfied with currently provided care, especially regarding the health issues not directly associated with the primary cancer. Parent caregivers' preferences for survivorship care provider is influenced by multiple factors, including age and survival time of CCSs, characteristics of parent caregivers, satisfaction level with care, and specific survivorship care contents. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS The findings of our study suggest that shared survivorship care for CCSs with consideration of specific care contents can complement the current oncologist-led survivorship care system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Keun Hye Jeon
- Department of Family Medicine, CHA Gumi Medical Center, CHA University, Gumi, Republic of Korea
| | - Dong Wook Shin
- Department of Family Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea
| | - Ji Won Lee
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Hee Jo Baek
- Department of Pediatrics, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Donggu, Gwangju, Republic of Korea
| | - Nack-Gyun Chung
- Department of Pediatrics, the Catholic University of Korea School of Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Ki Woong Sung
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Yun-Mi Song
- Department of Family Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Myers L, Johnston EA, Zajdlewicz L, Viljoen B, Kelly S, Perry N, Stiller A, Crawford-Williams F, Chan RJ, Emery JD, Bergin RJ, Aitken JF, Goodwin BC. What are the mechanisms underlying the delivery of survivorship care information in Australia? A realist review. Psychooncology 2024; 33:e6321. [PMID: 38488825 DOI: 10.1002/pon.6321] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2023] [Revised: 01/15/2024] [Accepted: 02/28/2024] [Indexed: 03/19/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Quality survivorship information is an essential component of cancer care. However, survivors often report not receiving this information and healthcare professionals report limited practical guidance on how to effectively deliver survivorship information. Therefore, this study used realist review methods to identify mechanisms reported within the published literature for communicating survivorship information and to understand the contextual factors that make these mechanisms effective. METHODS Full-text papers published in CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Academic Search Ultimate were included. Studies included in this review were conducted in Australia between January 2006 and December 2023, and reported on how information regarding survivorship care was communicated to adult cancer survivors living in the community. This review utilized realist methodologies: text extracts were converted to if-then statements used to generate context-mechanism-outcome theories. RESULTS Fifty-one studies were included and six theories for mechanisms that underpin the effective delivery of survivorship information were formed. These include: (1) tailoring information based on the survivors' background, (2) enhancing communication among providers, (3) employing dedicated survivorship staff, (4) providing survivorship training, (5) reducing the burden on survivors to navigate their care, and (6) using multiple modalities to provide information. CONCLUSIONS Findings can inform practical guidance for how survivorship care information is best delivered in practice. Clinicians can apply this guidance to improve their individual interactions with cancer survivors, as can policymakers to develop healthcare systems and procedures that support effective communication of cancer survivorship information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Larry Myers
- Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia
- School of Psychology and Wellbeing, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Queensland, Australia
| | - Elizabeth A Johnston
- Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia
- Population Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Queensland, Australia
- School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia
| | - Leah Zajdlewicz
- Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia
| | - Bianca Viljoen
- Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
- Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Queensland, Australia
| | - Sarah Kelly
- Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia
| | - Nicole Perry
- Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia
| | - Anna Stiller
- Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia
| | - Fiona Crawford-Williams
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia
| | - Raymond J Chan
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia
| | - Jon D Emery
- Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Rebecca J Bergin
- Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Joanne F Aitken
- Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia
- School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia
| | - Belinda C Goodwin
- Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia
- Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Queensland, Australia
- School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Halpern M, Mollica MA, Han PK, Tonorezos ES. Myths and Presumptions About Cancer Survivorship. J Clin Oncol 2024; 42:134-139. [PMID: 37972343 PMCID: PMC10824378 DOI: 10.1200/jco.23.00631] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2023] [Revised: 09/25/2023] [Accepted: 10/04/2023] [Indexed: 11/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Identifying cancer survivorship myths and presumptions perpetuated in survivorship circles.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Halpern
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD
| | - Michelle A. Mollica
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD
| | - Paul K.J. Han
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD
| | - Emily S. Tonorezos
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Jefford M, Emery JD, James Martin A, De Abreu Lourenco R, Lisy K, Grunfeld E, Mohamed MA, King D, Tebbutt NC, Lee M, Mehrnejad A, Burgess A, Marker J, Eggins R, Carrello J, Thomas H, Schofield P. SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 66:102346. [PMID: 38094163 PMCID: PMC10716007 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102346] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2023] [Revised: 11/14/2023] [Accepted: 11/15/2023] [Indexed: 05/27/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months. METHODS The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p. FINDINGS 150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients. INTERPRETATION SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors. FUNDING Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Jefford
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Jon D. Emery
- Centre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | | | - Richard De Abreu Lourenco
- Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia
| | - Karolina Lisy
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Eva Grunfeld
- Department of Community and Family Medicine and Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Mustafa Abdi Mohamed
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Dorothy King
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | | | - Margaret Lee
- Department of Medical Oncology, Western Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ashkan Mehrnejad
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Adele Burgess
- Olivia Newton John Cancer Centre, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia
| | - Julie Marker
- Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group, Centre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Renee Eggins
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Joseph Carrello
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Hayley Thomas
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Penelope Schofield
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Department of Psychology and Iverson Health Innovation Research Institute, Swinburne University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Sandell T, Schütze H, Miller A. Acceptability of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A qualitative evaluation. Health Expect 2023; 26:2441-2452. [PMID: 37583292 PMCID: PMC10632636 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13846] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2023] [Revised: 07/30/2023] [Accepted: 08/01/2023] [Indexed: 08/17/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Facilitators to implement shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice include mechanisms to allow the oncologist to continue overseeing the care of their patient, two-way information sharing and clear follow-up protocols for general practitioners (GPs). This paper aimed to evaluate patients, GPs and radiation oncologists (ROs) acceptance of a shared care intervention. METHODS Semi-structured interviews were conducted pre- and post intervention with patients that were 3 years post radiotherapy treatment for breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, their RO, and their GP. Inductive and deductive thematical analysis was employed. RESULTS Thirty-two participants were interviewed (19 patients, 9 GPs, and 4 ROs). Pre intervention, there was support for GPs to play a greater role in cancer follow-up care, however, patients were concerned about the GPs cancer-specific skills. Patients, GPs and ROs were concerned about increasing the GPs workload. Post intervention, participants were satisfied that the GPs had specific skills and that the impact on GP workload was comparable to writing a referral. However, GPs expressed concern about remuneration. GPs and ROs felt the model provided patient choice and were suitable for low-risk, stable patients around 2-3 years post treatment. Patients emphasised that they trusted their RO to advise them on the most appropriate follow-up model suited to their individual situation. The overall acceptance of shared care depended on successful health technology to connect the GP and RO. There were no differences in patient acceptance between rural, regional, and cancer types. ROs presented differences in acceptance for the different cancer types, with breast cancer strongly supported. CONCLUSION Patients, GPs and ROs felt this shared cancer follow-up model of care was acceptable, but only if the RO remained directly involved and the health technology worked. There is a need to review funding and advocate for health technology advances to support integration. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION Patients treated with curative radiotherapy for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, their RO and their GPs were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tiffany Sandell
- School of Graduate MedicineFaculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of WollongongWollongongNew South WalesAustralia
- Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Cancer ServicesNowraNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Heike Schütze
- School of Graduate MedicineFaculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of WollongongWollongongNew South WalesAustralia
- Office of Medical EducationFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South WalesSydneyNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Andrew Miller
- Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Cancer ServicesNowraNew South WalesAustralia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Foley J, Ward EC, Burns CL, Nund RL, Wishart LR, Graham N, Patterson C, Ashley A, Fink J, Tiavaasue E, Comben W. Enhancing speech-language pathology head and neck cancer service provision in rural Australia: Using a plan, do, study, act approach. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY 2023; 25:292-305. [PMID: 35532005 DOI: 10.1080/17549507.2022.2050300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE People with head and neck cancer (HNC) require ongoing speech-language pathology (SLP) services into the post-acute recovery phase of care. However, there are recognised service inequities/barriers for people from rural areas who are unable to access SLP services locally, necessitating travel to metropolitan centres. This study implemented strategies to assist rural speech-language pathologists to work to full scope of practice and support post-acute rehabilitation services for people with HNC. METHOD The study involved five SLP departments within a rural health referral network (one tertiary cancer centre, four rural sites). It involved a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) method, across two six month cycles, to achieve implementation of a model to support local SLP delivery of HNC care. Data collected included service activity, consumer feedback from people accessing local care, staff perceptions of the model and changes to local SLP service capabilities. RESULT Staff identified four objectives for change across the two PDSA cycles including resource development, upskilling/training and improving communication, and handover processes. In cycle 1, multiple resources were developed such as an eLearning program for training and skill development. In cycle 2, a pilot trial of a shared-care model was implemented, which successfully supported a transfer of care to local services for eight people with HNC. The majority of consumers accessing HNC care locally were satisfied with the service and would recommend future people with HNC receive similar care. CONCLUSION The PDSA process supported development and implementation of a model enabling local speech-language pathologists to offer post-acute care for people with HNC. This model helps rural people with HNC to access care closer to home by supporting rural clinicians to work to full scope of practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jasmine Foley
- School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Elizabeth C Ward
- School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Centre of Functioning and Health Research, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Clare L Burns
- School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Department of Speech Pathology, The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Rebecca L Nund
- School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Laurelie R Wishart
- School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Centre of Functioning and Health Research, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Australia
- Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Nicky Graham
- Department of Speech Pathology, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Wondai Hospital, Australia
| | - Corey Patterson
- Department of Speech Pathology, The Townsville University Hospital, The Townsville Hospital and Health Service, Townsville, Australia
| | - Amy Ashley
- Department of Speech Pathology, The Townsville University Hospital, The Townsville Hospital and Health Service, Townsville, Australia
| | - Julie Fink
- Department of Speech Pathology, The Townsville University Hospital, The Townsville Hospital and Health Service, Townsville, Australia
| | - Emily Tiavaasue
- Department of Speech Pathology, The Mount Isa Hospital, North West Hospital and Health service, Mount Isa, Australia
| | - Wendy Comben
- Department of Speech Pathology, The Townsville University Hospital, The Townsville Hospital and Health Service, Townsville, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Sandell T, Schütze H, Miller A, Ivers R. Patients' acceptance of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A population-based survey using the theoretical Framework of Acceptability. BMC PRIMARY CARE 2023; 24:86. [PMID: 36973691 PMCID: PMC10044765 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-023-02032-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2022] [Accepted: 03/09/2023] [Indexed: 03/29/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION International and national guidelines highlight the need for general practitioner involvement during and after active cancer treatment and throughout long-term follow-up care. This paper aimed to evaluate patients' acceptance of radiation oncology shared follow-up care using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). METHODS This cross-sectional study was conducted at two cancer care centres in the Illawarra Shoalhaven region of Australia. A sample of patients scheduled for a radiation oncology follow-up consultation in 2021 were sent a 32-point self-complete paper-based survey. Data were analysed using descriptive, parametric and non-parametric statistical analysis. This paper followed the Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). RESULTS Of the 414 surveys returned (45% response rate), the acceptance for radiation oncology shared cancer follow-up care was high (80%). Patients treated with only radiotherapy were 1.7 times more likely to accept shared follow-up care than those treated with multiple modalities. Patients who preferred follow-up care for fewer than three years were 7.5 times more likely to accept shared care than those who preferred follow-up care for five years. Patients who travelled more than 20 minutes to their radiation oncologist or to the rural cancer centre were slightly more likely to accept shared care than those who travelled less than twenty minutes to the regional cancer centre. A high understanding of shared care (Intervention Coherence) and a positive feeling towards shared care (Affective Attitude) were significant predictive factors in accepting shared radiation oncology follow-up care. CONCLUSION Health services need to ensure patient preferences are considered to provide patient-centred cancer follow-up care. Shared cancer follow-up care implementation should start with patients who prefer a shorter follow-up period and understand the benefits of shared care. However, patients' involvement needs to be considered alongside other clinical risk profiles and organisational factors. Future qualitative research using the TFA constructs is warranted to inform clinical practice change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tiffany Sandell
- Graduate School of Medicine, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
- Cancer Services, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
| | - Heike Schütze
- Graduate School of Medicine, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
- Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Andrew Miller
- Cancer Services, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| | - Rowena Ivers
- Graduate School of Medicine, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Giallauria F, Testa C, Cuomo G, Di Lorenzo A, Venturini E, Lauretani F, Maggio MG, Iannuzzo G, Vigorito C. Exercise Training in Elderly Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15061671. [PMID: 36980559 PMCID: PMC10046194 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15061671] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2022] [Revised: 03/02/2023] [Accepted: 03/03/2023] [Indexed: 03/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Due to the aging of the population, in 70% of cases, a new cancer diagnosis equals a cancer diagnosis in a geriatric patient. In this population, beyond the concept of mortality and morbidity, functional capacity, disability, and quality of life remain crucial. In fact, when the functional status is preserved, the pathogenetic curve towards disability will stop or even regress. The present systematic review investigated the effectiveness of physical exercise, as part of a holistic assessment of the patient, for preventing disability and improving the patient’s quality of life, and partially reducing all-cause mortality. This evidence must point towards decentralization of care by implementing the development of rehabilitation programs for elderly cancer patients either before or after anti-cancer therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Giallauria
- Department of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
- Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
- Correspondence:
| | - Crescenzo Testa
- Geriatric Clinic Unit, Geriatric-Rehabilitation Department, University Hospital, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Gianluigi Cuomo
- Department of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
| | - Anna Di Lorenzo
- Department of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
| | - Elio Venturini
- Cardiac Rehabilitation Unit and Department of Cardiology, Azienda USL Toscana Nord-Ovest, “Cecina Civil Hospital”, 57023 Cecina, Italy
| | - Fulvio Lauretani
- Geriatric Clinic Unit, Geriatric-Rehabilitation Department, University Hospital, 43126 Parma, Italy
- Cognitive and Motor Center, Medicine and Geriatric-Rehabilitation Department of Parma, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Marcello Giuseppe Maggio
- Geriatric Clinic Unit, Geriatric-Rehabilitation Department, University Hospital, 43126 Parma, Italy
- Cognitive and Motor Center, Medicine and Geriatric-Rehabilitation Department of Parma, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Gabriella Iannuzzo
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
| | - Carlo Vigorito
- Department of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Wullaert L, Voigt KR, Verhoef C, Husson O, Grünhagen DJ. Oncological surgery follow-up and quality of life: meta-analysis. Br J Surg 2023; 110:655-665. [PMID: 36781387 PMCID: PMC10364539 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znad022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2022] [Revised: 11/23/2022] [Accepted: 01/10/2023] [Indexed: 02/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous trials found that more intensive postoperative surveillance schedules did not improve survival. Oncological follow-up also provides an opportunity to address psychological issues (for example anxiety, depression, and fear of recurrence). This systematic review assessed the impact of a less intensive surveillance strategy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emotional well-being, and patient satisfaction. METHODS A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane database, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar to identify studies comparing different follow-up strategies after oncological surgery and their effect on HRQoL and patient satisfaction, published before 4 May 2022. A meta-analysis was conducted on the most relevant European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscales. RESULTS Thirty-five studies were identified, focusing on melanoma (4), colorectal (10), breast (7), prostate (4), upper gastrointestinal (4), gynaecological (3), lung (2), and head and neck (1) cancers. Twenty-two studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, of which 14 showed no significant difference in HRQoL between follow-up approaches. Five studies with a low risk of bias showed improved HRQoL or emotional well-being with a less intensive follow-up approach and three with an intensive approach. Meta-analysis of HRQoL outcomes revealed no negative effects for patients receiving less intensive follow-up. CONCLUSION Low-intensity follow-up does not diminish HRQoL, emotional well-being, or patient satisfaction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lissa Wullaert
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Kelly R Voigt
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Cornelis Verhoef
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Olga Husson
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Dirk J Grünhagen
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Clinical Management of Financial Toxicity-Identifying Opportunities through Experiential Insights of Cancer Survivors, Caregivers, and Social Workers. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:7705-7717. [PMID: 36290886 PMCID: PMC9601156 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29100609] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2022] [Revised: 10/10/2022] [Accepted: 10/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Perspectives of cancer survivors, caregivers, and social workers as key stakeholders on the clinical management of financial toxicity (FT) are critical to identify opportunities for better FT management. Semi-structured interviews (cancer survivors, caregivers) and a focus group (social workers) were undertaken using purposive sampling at a quaternary public hospital in Australia. People with any cancer diagnosis attending the hospital were eligible. Data were analysed using inductive-deductive content analysis techniques. Twenty-two stakeholders (n = 10 cancer survivors of mixed-cancer types, n = 5 caregivers, and n = 7 social workers) participated. Key findings included: (i) genuine concern for FT of cancer survivors and caregivers shown through practical support by health care and social workers; (ii) need for clarity of role and services; (iii) importance of timely information flow; and (iv) proactive navigation as a priority. While cancer survivors and caregivers received financial assistance and support from the hospital, the lack of synchronised, shared understanding of roles and services in relation to finance between cancer survivors, caregivers, and health professionals undermined the effectiveness and consistency of these services. A proactive approach to anticipate cancer survivors' and caregivers' needs is recommended. Future research may develop and evaluate initiatives to manage cancer survivors and families FT experiences and outcomes.
Collapse
|
16
|
Fox J, Thamm C, Mitchell G, Emery J, Rhee J, Hart NH, Yates P, Jefford M, Koczwara B, Halcomb E, Steinhardt R, O'Reilly R, Chan RJ. Cancer survivorship care and general practice: A qualitative study of roles of general practice team members in Australia. HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE IN THE COMMUNITY 2022; 30:e1415-e1426. [PMID: 34423502 DOI: 10.1111/hsc.13549] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2021] [Revised: 06/30/2021] [Accepted: 08/09/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Primary care providers, including general practice teams (GPTs), are well positioned within the community to integrate cancer survivorship care into ongoing health management. However, roles of GPT members in delivery of cancer survivorship care have not been explored. The purpose of this study is to explore these roles from the perspectives of General Practitioners (GPs), Practice Nurses (PNs) and Practice Managers (PMs). An interpretive qualitative study using semi-structured in-depth telephone interviews with ten GPs, nine PNs and five PMs was conducted. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using grounded theory methods. Perspectives of roles in delivery of cancer survivorship care were highly variable. Variation was evident among perceptions of needs of cancer survivors, individual team members' scopes of practice, and individual professional knowledge and skills. A lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities of GPT members was thought to contribute to a lack of consistency in survivorship care. Reducing variations in perceptions of survivorship care in the primary care setting should be a priority. Such efforts may include development of practical guidance to support GPT members to clarify scopes of practice within the team. In addition to accessible comprehensive education programs, other innovative, tailored individualised education approaches may be helpful. System-level support in clarifying and supporting the roles of the primary care team is needed to facilitate a survivorship delivery system at general practice level where those within GPT can ensure that individual patients' needs are met in a timely and effective manner.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Fox
- Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
- School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
| | - Carla Thamm
- Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
- School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
| | - Geoff Mitchell
- Limestone Medical Centre, Ipswich, Qld, Australia
- Primary Care Clinical Unit, University of Queensland, Herston, Qld, Australia
| | - Jon Emery
- Centre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Joel Rhee
- General Practice Academic Unit, School of Medicine, The University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| | - Nicolas H Hart
- Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
- School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
- School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Australia
- Institute for Health Research, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, SA, Australia
- East Brunswick Medical Centre, Brunswick, Vic., Australia
| | - Patsy Yates
- Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
- School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
- Division of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
| | - Michael Jefford
- Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Bogda Koczwara
- College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
- Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Elizabeth Halcomb
- School of Nursing, Midwifery and Indigenous Health, The University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Roslyn O'Reilly
- School of Nursing, Midwifery and Indigenous Health, The University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| | - Raymond J Chan
- Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
- School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, SA, Australia
- East Brunswick Medical Centre, Brunswick, Vic., Australia
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Yilmaz S, Janelsins MC, Flannery M, Culakova E, Wells M, Lin PJ, Loh KP, Epstein R, Kamen C, Kleckner AS, Norton SA, Plumb S, Alberti S, Doyle K, Porto M, Weber M, Dukelow N, Magnuson A, Kehoe LA, Nightingale G, Jensen-Battaglia M, Mustian KM, Mohile SG. Protocol paper: Multi-site, cluster-randomized clinical trial for optimizing functional outcomes of older cancer survivors after chemotherapy. J Geriatr Oncol 2022; 13:892-903. [PMID: 35292232 PMCID: PMC9283231 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2022.03.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2021] [Revised: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 03/04/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cancer survivors over the age of 65 have unique needs due to the higher prevalence of functional and cognitive impairment, comorbidities, geriatric syndromes, and greater need for social support after chemotherapy. In this study, we will evaluate whether a Geriatric Evaluation and Management-Survivorship (GEMS) intervention improves functional outcomes important to older cancer survivors following chemotherapy. METHODS A cluster-randomized trial will be conducted in approximately 30 community oncology practices affiliated with the University of Rochester Cancer Center (URCC) National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base. Participating sites will be randomized to the GEMS intervention, which includes Advanced Practice Practitioner (APP)-directed geriatric evaluation and management (GEM), and Survivorship Health Education (SHE) that is combined with Exercise for Cancer Patients (EXCAP©®), or usual care. Cancer survivors will be recruited from community oncology practices (of participating oncology physicians and APPs) after the enrolled clinicians have consented and completed a baseline survey. We will enroll 780 cancer survivors aged 65 years and older who have completed curative-intent chemotherapy for a solid tumor malignancy within four weeks of study enrollment. Cancer survivors will be asked to choose one caregiver to also participate for a total up to 780 caregivers. The primary aim is to compare the effectiveness of GEMS for improving patient-reported physical function at six months. The secondary aim is to compare effectiveness of GEMS for improving patient-reported cognitive function at six months. Tertiary aims include comparing the effectiveness of GEMS for improving: 1) Patient-reported physical function at twelve months; 2) objectively assessed physical function at six and twelve months; and 3) patient-reported cognitive function at twelve months and objectively assessed cognitive function at six and twelve months. Exploratory health care aims include: 1) Survivor satisfaction with care, 2) APP communication with primary care physicians (PCPs), 3) completion of referral appointments, and 4) hospitalizations at six and twelve months. Exploratory caregiver aims include: 1) Caregiver distress; 2) caregiver quality of life; 3) caregiver burden; and 4) satisfaction with patient care at six and twelve months. DISCUSSION If successful, GEMS would be an option for a standardized APP-led survivorship care intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.govNCT05006482, registered on August 9, 2021.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Yilmaz
- Division of Supportive Care in Cancer, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA; Geriatric Oncology Research, James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | - M C Janelsins
- Division of Supportive Care in Cancer, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - M Flannery
- School of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - E Culakova
- Division of Supportive Care in Cancer, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - M Wells
- Geriatric Oncology Research, James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - P-J Lin
- Division of Supportive Care in Cancer, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - K P Loh
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - R Epstein
- Department of Family Medicine Research, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - C Kamen
- Division of Supportive Care in Cancer, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - A S Kleckner
- Department of Pain and Translational Symptom Science, University of Maryland School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - S A Norton
- School of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - S Plumb
- Geriatric Oncology Research, James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - S Alberti
- Division of Supportive Care in Cancer, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - K Doyle
- Division of Supportive Care in Cancer, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - M Porto
- Division of Supportive Care in Cancer, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - M Weber
- Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - N Dukelow
- Department of Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - A Magnuson
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - L A Kehoe
- Division of Supportive Care in Cancer, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - G Nightingale
- Department of Pharmacy Practice, Jefferson College of Pharmacy, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - M Jensen-Battaglia
- Geriatric Oncology Research, James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - K M Mustian
- Division of Supportive Care in Cancer, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - S G Mohile
- Geriatric Oncology Research, James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA; Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Risk Stratification and Cancer Follow-Up: Towards More Personalized Post-Treatment Care in Canada. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:3215-3223. [PMID: 35621651 PMCID: PMC9139666 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29050261] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2022] [Revised: 04/29/2022] [Accepted: 04/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
After treatment, cancer survivors require ongoing, comprehensive care to improve quality of life, reduce disability, limit complications, and restore function. In Canada and internationally, follow-up care continues to be delivered most often by oncologists in institution-based settings. There is extensive evidence to demonstrate that this model of care does not work well for many survivors or our cancer systems. Randomized controlled trials have clearly demonstrated that alternate approaches to follow-up care are equivalent to oncologist-led follow-up in terms of patient outcomes, such as recurrence, survival, and quality of life in a number of common cancers. In this paper, we discuss the state of follow-up care for survivors of prevalent cancers and the need for more personalized models of follow-up. Indeed, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to post-treatment follow-up care, and more personalized approaches to follow-up that are based on individual risks and needs after cancer treatment are warranted. Canada lags behind when it comes to personalizing follow-up care for cancer survivors. There are many reasons for this, including difficulty in determining who is best served by different follow-up pathways, a paucity of evidence-informed self-management education and supports for most survivors, poorly developed IT solutions and systems, and uneven coordination of care. Using implementation science theories, approaches, and methods may help in addressing these challenges and delineating what might work best in particular settings and circumstances.
Collapse
|
19
|
Jefford M, Howell D, Li Q, Lisy K, Maher J, Alfano CM, Rynderman M, Emery J. Improved models of care for cancer survivors. Lancet 2022; 399:1551-1560. [PMID: 35430022 PMCID: PMC9009839 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(22)00306-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 92] [Impact Index Per Article: 46.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2021] [Revised: 01/23/2022] [Accepted: 02/10/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
The number of survivors of cancer is increasing substantially. Current models of care are unsustainable and fail to address the many unmet needs of survivors of cancer. Numerous trials have investigated alternate models of care, including models led by primary-care providers, care shared between oncology specialists and primary-care providers, and care led by oncology nurses. These alternate models appear to be at least as effective as specialist-led care and are applicable to many survivors of cancer. Choosing the most appropriate care model for each patient depends on patient-level factors (such as risk of longer-term effects, late effects, individual desire, and capacity to self-manage), local services, and health-care policy. Wider implementation of alternative models requires appropriate support for non-oncologist care providers and endorsement of these models by cancer teams with their patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven some changes in practice that are more patient-centred and should continue. Improved models should shift from a predominant focus on detection of cancer recurrence and seek to improve the quality of life, functional outcomes, experience, and survival of survivors of cancer, reduce the risk of recurrence and new cancers, improve the management of comorbidities, and reduce costs to patients and payers. This Series paper focuses primarily on high-income countries, where most data have been derived. However, future research should consider the applicability of these models in a wider range of health-care settings and for a wider range of cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Jefford
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Doris Howell
- Princess Margaret Cancer Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Qiuping Li
- Wuxi School of Medicine, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China
| | - Karolina Lisy
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | | | - Catherine M Alfano
- Northwell Health Cancer Institute, Lake Success, NY, USA; Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA; Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, USA
| | - Meg Rynderman
- Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Jon Emery
- Centre for Cancer Research, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Duangchan C, Steffen A, Matthews AK. Thai oncology nurses' perspectives toward survivorship care plan components and implementation for colorectal cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer 2022; 30:4089-4098. [PMID: 35066665 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-021-06766-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2021] [Accepted: 12/15/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To describe oncology nurses' perspectives regarding survivorship care plan (SCP) components and implementation for colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in Thailand. METHODS A cross-sectional, descriptive online study was conducted between October and November 2020. Thai oncology nurses were recruited using Facebook and the Line application. Study participants (n = 160) rated the usefulness of four standard SCP components (treatment summaries, surveillance, late/long-term effects, and health promotion and psychosocial needs; n = 23 items) and gave input on the implementation of SCPs in clinical practice (n = 11 items). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS Most oncology nurses supported providing CRC survivors with SCPs (93.2%) and felt that SCPs were an important part of their practice (93.7%). Nurses rated all four SCP components as "very useful," including treatment summaries (76.4%), surveillance (81.9%), late/long-term effects (85.7%), and health behavior and psychosocial concerns (80.2%). In terms of implementation, most nurses indicated that oncologists should prepare (84.4%) and provide SCPs (95%), but 61.9% and 69.4% of nurses, respectively, also believed that they should perform these tasks. In addition, most nurses indicated that they should play a significant role in the ongoing management of CRC survivors (95.7%) and that evidence-based surveillance guidelines are needed (96.2%). CONCLUSION Oncology nurses believed that the four SCP components were helpful to the long-term management of CRC survivors, supported SCP provision, and expressed their perceived responsibilities for preparing and delivering SCPs. The findings suggested opportunities for oncology nurses to play a significant role in developing and implementing SCPs. However, additional efforts are needed to expand nurses' roles in survivorship care and establish practice guidelines that will facilitate integration of SCPs into nursing practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cherdsak Duangchan
- University of Illinois at Chicago College of Nursing, Chicago, IL, USA. .,Faculty of Nursing, HRH Princess Chulabhorn College of Medical Science, Chulabhorn Royal Academy, Bangkok, Thailand.
| | - Alana Steffen
- University of Illinois at Chicago College of Nursing, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Alicia K Matthews
- University of Illinois at Chicago College of Nursing, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
O’Hea EL, Creamer S, Flahive JM, Keating BA, Crocker CR, Williamson SR, Edmiston KL, Harralson T, Boudreaux ED. Survivorship care planning, quality of life, and confidence to transition to survivorship: A randomized controlled trial with women ending treatment for breast cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol 2022; 40:574-594. [PMID: 34151734 PMCID: PMC9157313 DOI: 10.1080/07347332.2021.1936336] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The Polaris Oncology Survivorship Transition (POST) system is a computer-based program that integrates information from the electronic health record, oncology team, and the patient to produce a personalized Survivorship Care Plan. The purpose of this study was to compare the POST to treatment as usual on confidence, quality of life, and interest in mental health referrals in women ending treatment for breast cancer. SAMPLE Two hundred women (100 POST, 100 treatment as usual) ending treatment for breast cancer were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. DESIGN Women randomized to the POST condition received a personalized care plan during a baseline/intervention appointment. At enrollment and baseline/intervention, a number of outcomes were examined in this study, including confidence to enter survivorship measured by the Confidence in Survivorship Index (CSI) and Quality of Life (QOL). One, three, and six month follow up assessments were also conducted. FINDINGS Treatment groups did not differ in terms of QOL scores at any time points. Mean CSI scores were statistically different between POST and treatment as usual at baseline for the total CSI score and both subscales, but only for confidence in knowledge about prevention and treatment at the 1-month follow-up. All significant differences were in favor of the POST intervention as mean CSI scores were higher for participants who received the POST intervention as opposed to treatment as usual. These findings disappeared at the 3 and 6 month follow up assessments. Finally, patients who received the POST intervention were twice as likely to request mental health/social services referrals compared to women who received treatment as usual. IMPLICATIONS Oncologists may use the POST to build personalized care plans for women ending treatment for cancer, which may enhance patients' confidence in the short term as well as encourage use of mental health resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin L. O’Hea
- Stonehill College and University of Massachusetts Medical School, 320 Washington Street, Easton, MA, USA 02357
| | - Samantha Creamer
- University of Massachusetts Medical School, Department of Psychiatry
| | - Julie M. Flahive
- University of Massachusetts Medical School, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Science
| | - Beth A. Keating
- University of Massachusetts Medical School, Department of Hematology/Oncology
| | | | | | | | | | - Edwin D. Boudreaux
- Departments of Emergency Medicine, Psychiatry, and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Foley J, Ward EC, Burns CL, Nund RL, Wishart L, Graham N, Patterson C, Ashley A, Fink J, Tiavaasue E, Comben W. Speech pathology service enhancement for people with head and neck cancer living in rural areas: Using a concept mapping approach to inform service change. Head Neck 2021; 43:3504-3521. [PMID: 34477267 DOI: 10.1002/hed.26850] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2021] [Accepted: 08/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Speech pathology (SP) services provide swallowing and communication intervention to people with head and neck cancer (HNC) across the continuum of care. However, difficulties exist with access and delivery of services in rural areas. The study aim was to identify actionable goals for SP change, utilizing a concept mapping approach. METHODS Eleven SP staff from two regional/remote services completed the concept mapping process. Multivariate analysis and multidimensional scaling were used to develop a final set of prioritized goals for change. RESULTS Between the two participating health services, 30 actionable goals were identified within the "green-zone" on the go-zone graph of importance and changeability. Among the most highly rated areas for change was the need to deliver and receive more support for training, mentoring, and supervision to consolidate skills. CONCLUSIONS This methodology enabled identification of prioritized, actionable changes to improve SP services for people with HNC living in regional/remote areas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jasmine Foley
- The University of Queensland, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Elizabeth C Ward
- The University of Queensland, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Speech Pathology Department, The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Clare L Burns
- The University of Queensland, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Speech Pathology Department, The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Rebecca L Nund
- The University of Queensland, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Laurelie Wishart
- The University of Queensland, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Centre of Functioning and Health Research, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Nicky Graham
- Speech Pathology Department, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Wondai Hospital, Wondai, Queensland, Australia
| | - Corey Patterson
- Speech Pathology Department, The Townsville University Hospital, The Townsville Hospital and Health Service, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
| | - Amy Ashley
- Speech Pathology Department, The Townsville University Hospital, The Townsville Hospital and Health Service, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
| | - Julie Fink
- Speech Pathology Department, The Townsville University Hospital, The Townsville Hospital and Health Service, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
| | - Emily Tiavaasue
- Speech Pathology Department, The Mount Isa Hospital, North West Hospital and Health Service, Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia
| | - Wendy Comben
- Speech Pathology Department, The Townsville University Hospital, The Townsville Hospital and Health Service, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Arem H, Pratt-Chapman ML, Landry M, Berg C, Mead KH. Quality of life among cancer survivors by model of cancer survivorship care. J Psychosoc Oncol 2021; 40:561-573. [PMID: 34348589 DOI: 10.1080/07347332.2021.1947937] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There were an estimated 16.9 million cancer survivors in the United States in 2019, but there is wide variation in survivorship care. Patient-reported outcomes associated with distinct care models are unknown. Thus, we examined differences in quality of life by cancer survivorship care model. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a comparative effectiveness trial, recruiting 32 Commission on Cancer-accredited centers in 2015-2016. Sites were characterized as one of three models: 1) Single Consultative visit, 2) Specialized Longitudinal care with ongoing visits at predetermined intervals, 3) Oncology-Embedded care with visits as needed. We included breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors who had completed active treatment but had not yet attended a survivorship visit (n = 991). Quality of life was assessed using 20 physical, 14 social/emotional, and 7 practical concerns, adapted from the Quality of Life-Breast Cancer Survivors and Functional Living Index Cancer scales.1,2 We used frequencies to describe prevalent symptoms and ANOVA to test for global differences in concerns by survivorship care model, post-hoc Tukey's test for pairwise comparisons, and mixed-effects models to describe changes in quality of life by care model over six-months. RESULTS While unadjusted results suggested that nearly all concerns worsened over six months, no differences were observed in quality of life concerns by care model for physical or practical concerns. At baseline, social/emotional concerns showed a global difference by model (p = 0.008; pairwise results showed fewer concerns among Oncology-Embedded survivors compared to Specialized Consultative survivors; 12.1 vs 15.2, p < 0.05), but no differences were found at six months (global p = 0.311). Mixed effects models showed no change in quality of life by model over six-months. CONCLUSIONS Our results do not support an association between quality of life and care model over six-months. Still, participants reported many quality of life concerns across domains that must be addressed, regardless of care model.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah Arem
- Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Medstar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Mandi L Pratt-Chapman
- GW Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA.,School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Megan Landry
- Milken Institute School of Public Health, Department of Prevention and Community Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Carla Berg
- GW Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA.,Milken Institute School of Public Health, Department of Prevention and Community Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Katherine Holly Mead
- Milken Institute School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Wallner LP, Abrahamse P, Gargaro JG, Radhakrishnan A, Mullins MA, An LC, Griggs JJ, Schott AF, Ayanian JZ, Sales AE, Katz S, Hawley ST. Improving the delivery of team-based survivorship care after primary breast cancer treatment through a multi-level intervention: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2021; 189:81-92. [PMID: 34235608 PMCID: PMC8375358 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06257-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2021] [Accepted: 05/04/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We developed and tested a multi-level intervention, ConnectedCancerCare (CCC), which includes a tailored website and appointment reminder system for women with early-stage breast cancer and a provider summary letter sent to their medical oncologist and primary care provider to improve the delivery of team-based survivorship care. METHODS We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to establish the feasibility and acceptability of CCC. Women diagnosed with stages 0-II breast cancer within one year of completing primary treatment were randomized to CCC (intervention) or a static online survivorship care plan (control). Participants completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys online. Post-trial interviews with 5 PCPs, 6 oncology providers, and 8 intervention patients were conducted. RESULTS Of the 160 eligible women invited to participate, 66 completed the baseline survey and were randomized (41%) and 54 completed a follow-up survey (83%). Participants in the intervention arm found the CCC content to be acceptable, with 82% reporting it was easy to use and 86% reporting they would recommend it to other patients. Women randomized to CCC (vs. control) more often reported scheduling a PCP follow-up visit (64% vs. 42%), communicating with their PCP about provider roles (67% vs. 18%), and higher mean team-based cancer care knowledge scores (3.7 vs. 3.4). CONCLUSION Deploying CCC in medical oncology practices was feasible, and the intervention content was acceptable. CCC shows promise for improving patient knowledge and patient-provider communication about provider roles in team-based cancer care and encouraging patients to engage with their PCP early in the survivorship period.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren P Wallner
- Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Room 409E, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA.
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Room 409E, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA.
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
- Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
| | - Paul Abrahamse
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Joan G Gargaro
- Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Archana Radhakrishnan
- Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Room 409E, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Megan A Mullins
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Lawrence C An
- Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Room 409E, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Jennifer J Griggs
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Anne F Schott
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - John Z Ayanian
- Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Room 409E, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA
- Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Anne E Sales
- Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Department of Learning Health Sciences, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Steven Katz
- Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Room 409E, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Sarah T Hawley
- Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Room 409E, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Pham Q, Hearn J, Bender JL, Berlin A, Brown I, Bryant-Lukosius D, Feifer AH, Finelli A, Gotto G, Hamilton R, Rendon R, Cafazzo JA. Virtual care for prostate cancer survivorship: protocol for an evaluation of a nurse-led algorithm-enhanced virtual clinic implemented at five cancer centres across Canada. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e045806. [PMID: 33883153 PMCID: PMC8061848 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045806] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in Canadian men. Current models of survivorship care are no longer adequate to address the chronic and complex survivorship needs of patients today. Virtual care models for cancer survivorship have recently been associated with comparable clinical outcomes and lower costs to traditional follow-up care, with patients favouring off-site and on-demand visits. Building on their viability, our research group conceived the Ned Clinic-a virtual PCa survivorship model that provides patients with access to lab results, collects patient-reported outcomes, alerts clinicians to emerging issues, and promotes patient self-care. Despite the promise of the Ned Clinic, the model remains limited by its dependence on oncology specialists, lack of an autonomous triage algorithm, and has only been implemented among PCa survivors living in Ontario. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Our programme of research comprises two main research objectives: (1) to evaluate the process and cost of implementing and sustaining five nurse-led virtual PCa survivorship clinics in three provinces across Canada and identify barriers and facilitators to implementation success and (2) to assess the impact of these virtual clinics on implementation and effectiveness outcomes of enrolled PCa survivors. The design phase will involve developing an autonomous triage algorithm and redesigning the Ned Clinic towards a nurse-led service model. Site-specific implementation plans will be developed to deploy a localised nurse-led virtual clinic at each centre. Effectiveness will be evaluated using a historical control study comparing the survivorship outcomes of 300 PCa survivors enrolled in the Ned Clinic with 300 PCa survivors receiving traditional follow-up care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Appropriate site-specific ethics approval will be secured prior to each research phase. Knowledge translation efforts will include diffusion, dissemination, and application approaches to ensure that knowledge is translated to both academic and lay audiences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Quynh Pham
- Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jason Hearn
- Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
| | - Jacqueline L Bender
- ELLICSR Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alejando Berlin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ian Brown
- Division of Urology, Niagara Health System, Saint Catharines, Ontario, Canada
- Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Denise Bryant-Lukosius
- Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing and Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrew H Feifer
- Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Antonio Finelli
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Geoffrey Gotto
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Robert Hamilton
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ricardo Rendon
- Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Joseph A Cafazzo
- Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Deckx L, Chow KH, Askew D, van Driel ML, Mitchell GK, van den Akker M. Psychosocial care for cancer survivors: A systematic literature review on the role of general practitioners. Psychooncology 2021; 30:444-454. [PMID: 33314485 DOI: 10.1002/pon.5612] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2020] [Revised: 12/04/2020] [Accepted: 12/08/2020] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To explore the general practitioners (GP's) role in providing psychosocial care for cancer survivors through a systematic literature review. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL and included the studies that complied with the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. At least two independent reviewers performed the quality appraisal and data extraction. RESULTS We included 33 (five qualitative, 19 observational, and nine intervention) studies; the majority of these studies focused on care for depression and anxiety (21/33). Cancer survivors were more likely to contact their GP for psychosocial problems compared with noncancer controls. Survivors were more likely to use antidepressants compared with controls, although 71% of survivors preferred depression treatment to be "talking therapy only." Overall, GPs and patients mostly agreed that GPs are the preferred healthcare provider to manage psychosocial problems. The major exception is a survivor's fear of recurrence-here, the oncologist was the preferred healthcare provider. Only two interventions effectively decreased depression or anxiety; these studies included patients who had a clinical indication for psychosocial care, were specifically designed for decreasing depression/anxiety, and consisted of a multidisciplinary team approach. The other interventions evaluated GP-led follow-up for cancer survivors and found that this did not impact the patients' levels of anxiety, depression, or distress neither negatively nor positively. CONCLUSIONS Cancer survivors often prefer psychosocial care by their GP, and GPs generally consider they are well placed to provide this care. Although evidence on the effectiveness of psychosocial care by GPs is limited, an active multidisciplinary team approach seems key.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Deckx
- Primary Care Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Ka Hei Chow
- Primary Care Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Deborah Askew
- Primary Care Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Mieke L van Driel
- Primary Care Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Geoffrey K Mitchell
- Primary Care Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Marjan van den Akker
- Institute of General Practice, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.,Academic Centre for General Practice, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Department of General Practice, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Johnson H, Taylor S, Peat S, Booker J, Yorke J. Evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) monitoring in primary care after discharge from hospital-based follow-up following prostate cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2020; 30:e13389. [PMID: 33336540 DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13389] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2020] [Revised: 10/01/2020] [Accepted: 11/27/2020] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine follow-up procedures after men are discharged into primary care following prostate cancer and highlight any areas for service improvement. METHODS Patient record data from two Greater Manchester boroughs were retrieved retrospectively to investigate discharge instructions and monitoring adherence. Questionnaires were sent to patients exploring their understanding of the follow-up process. RESULTS A total of 300 records were accessed. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) re-referral level was provided to GPs in 39% of cases. Forty- six percent of men were not tested frequently enough, and 6% had no PSA testing recorded post-discharge. A total of 222 patient questionnaires were returned. Sixty-seven percent felt GPs should be responsible for PSA monitoring, and 60% felt confident that their GP was doing so effectively. Conversely, 12% felt their PSA monitoring had been neglected. CONCLUSION The findings highlight the complex nature of the follow-up and monitoring processes for prostate cancer patients. There is an urgent need for consensus in terms of monitoring frequency and referral pathways. Many patients do not engage in accurate monitoring post-treatment which has implications for early diagnosis of recurrence. Findings will be used to create an evidence-based, uniform Greater Manchester PSA monitoring service which is safe, acceptable and effective for all.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sally Taylor
- The Christie Patient Centred Research Team, The Christie School of Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Sara Peat
- The Christie Patient Centred Research Team, The Christie School of Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Jane Booker
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Janelle Yorke
- The Christie Patient Centred Research Team, The Christie School of Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.,Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Krok-Schoen JL, Naughton MJ, Noonan AM, Pisegna J, DeSalvo J, Lustberg MB. Perspectives of Survivorship Care Plans Among Older Breast Cancer Survivors: A Pilot Study. Cancer Control 2020; 27:1073274820917208. [PMID: 32233798 PMCID: PMC7143997 DOI: 10.1177/1073274820917208] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
The Commission on Cancer’s standard 3.3 represents a paradigm shift in the care
of cancer survivors, recommending that survivors receive a treatment summary and
survivorship care plan (SCPs). A focus on older breast cancer survivors is
needed, as they are the majority of the breast cancer population and their
experiences and perspectives of SCPs is limited in the literature. This pilot
study utilized a mixed methods approach (focus groups and self-report
questionnaire data) to gather information on older (≥65 years) breast cancer
survivors’ perspectives of their SCPs, cancer survivorship, and communication
with their health-care providers. The questionnaire was completed individually
by the participants prior to the focus group and contained items on basic
demographics and their health status following cancer treatment. The focus
groups indicated that only a minority of women actually developed a SCP. Those
who developed a SCP in collaboration with their providers valued the personal
care and attention received. However, some participants reported poor
communication with their providers and within their health-care team, resulting
in frustration and confusion. Participants’ suggestions for ideal SCPs included
better education and personalization, particularly in appropriate nutrition and
exercise, and managing side effects and comorbidities. Lastly, the women
believed that additional long-term care resources, such as health coaches, were
important in improving their survivorship. These findings provide insight into
enhancing the content, communication, and application of SCPs to improve the
survivorship experience of older breast cancer survivors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica L Krok-Schoen
- Division of Medical Dietetics and Health Sciences, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.,Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Michelle J Naughton
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.,Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Anne M Noonan
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Janell Pisegna
- Division of Medical Dietetics and Health Sciences, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Jennifer DeSalvo
- College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Maryam B Lustberg
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.,College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Halpern MT, Cohen J, Lines LM, Mollica MA, Kent EE. Associations between shared care and patient experiences among older cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv 2020; 15:333-343. [PMID: 32948992 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-020-00934-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2020] [Accepted: 08/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Cancer survivors have unique medical care needs. "Shared care," delivered by both oncologists and primary care providers (PCPs), may better address these needs. Little information is available on differences in outcomes among survivors receiving shared care versus oncologist-led or PCP-led care. This study compared experiences of care for survivors receiving shared care, oncologist-led, PCP-led, or other care patterns. METHODS We used SEER-CAHPS data, including NCI's SEER registry data, Medicare claims, and Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey responses. Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries age ≥ 65 years in SEER-CAHPS with breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, renal, or prostate cancers or hematologic malignancies who responded to a Medicare CAHPS survey ≥ 18 months post-diagnosis were included. CAHPS measures included ratings of overall care, personal doctor, specialist physician, health plan, prescription drug plan, and five composite scores. Survivorship care patterns were identified using proportions of oncologist, PCP, and other physician encounters. Multivariable regressions examined associations between care patterns and CAHPS outcomes. RESULTS Among 10,132 survivors, 15% received shared care, 10% oncologist-led, 33% PCP-led, and 42% other. Compared with shared care, we found no significant differences in experiences of care except for getting needed drugs (lower scores for PCP-led and other care patterns). Sensitivity analyses using different patterns of care definitions similarly showed no associations between survivorship care pattern and experience of care. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of the study dataset, survivors age 65+ receiving shared care reported similar experiences of care to those receiving oncologist-led, PCP-led, and other patterns of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS Shared care may not provide survivor-perceived benefits compared with other care patterns.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael T Halpern
- Healthcare Delivery Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA.
| | - Julia Cohen
- RTI International, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27709, USA
| | - Lisa M Lines
- RTI International, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27709, USA.,University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA
| | - Michelle A Mollica
- Healthcare Delivery Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA
| | - Erin E Kent
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Sharing Cancer Survivorship Care between Oncology and Primary Care Providers: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals' Experiences. J Clin Med 2020; 9:jcm9092991. [PMID: 32947973 PMCID: PMC7563389 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9092991] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2020] [Revised: 09/10/2020] [Accepted: 09/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Survivorship care that is shared between oncology and primary care providers may be a suitable model to effectively and efficiently care for the growing survivor population, however recommendations supporting implementation are lacking. This qualitative study aimed to explore health care professionals’ (HCPs) perceived facilitators and barriers to the implementation, delivery and sustainability of shared survivorship care. Data were collected via semi-structured focus groups and analysed by inductive thematic analysis. Results identified four overarching themes: (1) considerations for HCPs; (2) considerations regarding patients; (3) considerations for planning and process; and (4) policy implications. For HCPs, subthemes included general practitioner (GP, primary care physician) knowledge and need for further training, having clear protocols for follow-up, and direct communication channels between providers. Patient considerations included identifying patients suitable for shared care, discussing shared care with patients early in their cancer journey, and patients’ relationships with their GPs. Regarding process, subthemes included rapid referral pathways back to hospital, care coordination, and ongoing data collection to inform refinement of a dynamic model. Finally, policy implications included development of policy to support a consistent shared care model, and reliable and sustainable funding mechanisms. Based on study findings, a set of recommendations for practice and policy were developed.
Collapse
|
31
|
Lisy K, Kent J, Piper A, Jefford M. Facilitators and barriers to shared primary and specialist cancer care: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer 2020; 29:85-96. [PMID: 32803729 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-020-05624-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2020] [Accepted: 07/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karolina Lisy
- Department of Cancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. .,Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. .,Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Jennifer Kent
- Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Amanda Piper
- Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Michael Jefford
- Department of Cancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Wollersheim BM, van Asselt KM, van der Poel HG, van Weert HCPM, Hauptmann M, Retèl VP, Aaronson NK, van de Poll-Franse LV, Boekhout AH. Design of the PROstate cancer follow-up care in Secondary and Primary hEalth Care study (PROSPEC): a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up of localized prostate cancer survivors. BMC Cancer 2020; 20:635. [PMID: 32641023 PMCID: PMC7346492 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07112-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2020] [Accepted: 06/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In its 2006 report, From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition, the U.S. Institute of Medicine raised the need for a more coordinated and comprehensive care model for cancer survivors. Given the ever increasing number of cancer survivors, in general, and prostate cancer survivors, in particular, there is a need for a more sustainable model of follow-up care. Currently, patients who have completed primary treatment for localized prostate cancer are often included in a specialist-based follow-up care program. General practitioners already play a key role in providing continuous and comprehensive health care. Studies in breast and colorectal cancer suggest that general practitioners could also consider to provide survivorship care in prostate cancer. However, empirical data are needed to determine whether follow-up care of localized prostate cancer survivors by the general practitioner is a feasible alternative. METHODS This multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority study will compare specialist-based (usual care) versus general practitioner-based (intervention) follow-up care of prostate cancer survivors who have completed primary treatment (prostatectomy or radiotherapy) for localized prostate cancer. Patients are being recruited from hospitals in the Netherlands, and randomly (1:1) allocated to specialist-based (N = 195) or general practitioner-based (N = 195) follow-up care. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up, in comparison to usual care, in terms of adherence to the prostate cancer surveillance guideline for the timing and frequency of prostate-specific antigen assessments, the time from a biochemical recurrence to retreatment decision-making, the management of treatment-related side effects, health-related quality of life, prostate cancer-related anxiety, continuity of care, and cost-effectiveness. The outcome measures will be assessed at randomization (≤6 months after treatment), and 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. DISCUSSION This multicenter, prospective, randomized study will provide empirical evidence regarding the (cost-) effectiveness of specialist-based follow-up care compared to general practitioner-based follow-up care for localized prostate cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7068 (NTR7266). Prospectively registered on 11 June 2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara M Wollersheim
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066, Amsterdam, CX, The Netherlands
| | - Kristel M van Asselt
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Henk G van der Poel
- Department of Urology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Henk C P M van Weert
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Michael Hauptmann
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066, Amsterdam, CX, The Netherlands
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Valesca P Retèl
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066, Amsterdam, CX, The Netherlands
| | - Neil K Aaronson
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066, Amsterdam, CX, The Netherlands
| | - Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066, Amsterdam, CX, The Netherlands
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer organization (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, CoRPS - Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - Annelies H Boekhout
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066, Amsterdam, CX, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Haggstrom DA, Kahn KL, Klabunde CN, Gray SW, Keating NL. Oncologists' perceptions of the usefulness of cancer survivorship care plan components. Support Care Cancer 2020; 29:945-954. [PMID: 32537684 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-020-05531-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2019] [Accepted: 05/14/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The Institute of Medicine recommends that cancer patients receive survivorship care plans (SCP) summarizing information important to the individual's long-term care. The various components of SCPs have varying levels of evidence supporting their impact. We surveyed medical oncologists to better understand how they perceived the relative value of different SCP components. METHODS Medical oncologists caring for patients in diverse US practice settings were surveyed (357 respondents; participation rate 52.9%) about their perceptions of the usefulness of various components of SCPs to both patients and primary care physicians (PCPs). RESULTS Oncologists perceived treatment summaries as "very useful" for PCPs but were less likely to perceive them as "very useful" for patients (55% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). Information about the psychological effects of cancer (41% vs. 29%; p < 0.001) and healthy behaviors (67% vs. 41%; p < 0.001) were considered more useful to patients than to PCPs. From 3 to 20% of oncologists believed that any given component of the SCP was not useful to either PCPs or patients. Oncologists who perceived SCPs to be more useful tended to be female or to practice in settings with a fully implemented electronic health record. CONCLUSIONS Oncologists do not perceive all components of SCPs to be equally useful to both patients and PCPs. To be successfully implemented, the SCP should be efficiently tailored to the unique needs and knowledge of patients and their PCPs. A minority of oncologists appear to be late adopters, suggesting that some resistance to the adoption of SCPs remains.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David A Haggstrom
- Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. .,Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Center for Health Services Research, 1101 West Tenth Street, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. .,Center for Health Information and Communication, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
| | - Katherine L Kahn
- David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.,RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA
| | - Carrie N Klabunde
- Office of Disease Prevention, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Stacy W Gray
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Nancy L Keating
- Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Whear R, Thompson‐Coon J, Rogers M, Abbott RA, Anderson L, Ukoumunne O, Matthews J, Goodwin VA, Briscoe S, Perry M, Stein K. Patient-initiated appointment systems for adults with chronic conditions in secondary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 4:CD010763. [PMID: 32271946 PMCID: PMC7144896 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010763.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Missed hospital outpatient appointments is a commonly reported problem in healthcare services around the world; for example, they cost the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK millions of pounds every year and can cause operation and scheduling difficulties worldwide. In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a report highlighting the need for a model of care that more readily meets the needs of people with chronic conditions. Patient-initiated appointment systems may be able to meet this need at the same time as improving the efficiency of hospital appointments. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of patient-initiated appointment systems compared with consultant-led appointment systems for people with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases. We contacted authors of identified studies and conducted backwards and forwards citation searching. We searched for current/ongoing research in two trial registers. Searches were run on 13 March 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised trials, published and unpublished in any language that compared the use of patient-initiated appointment systems to consultant-led appointment systems for adults with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care if they reported one or more of the following outcomes: physical measures of health status or disease activity (including harms), quality of life, service utilisation or cost, adverse effects, patient or clinician satisfaction, or failures of the 'system'. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened all references at title/abstract stage and full-text stage using prespecified inclusion criteria. We resolved disagreements though discussion. Two review authors independently completed data extraction for all included studies. We discussed and resolved discrepancies with a third review author. Where needed, we contacted authors of included papers to provide more information. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care 'Risk of bias' tool, resolving any discrepancies with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS The 17 included randomised trials (3854 participants; mean age 41 to 76 years; follow-up 12 to 72 months) covered six broad health conditions: cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease. The certainty of the evidence using GRADE ratings was mainly low to very low. The results suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to anxiety (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.12; 5 studies, 1019 participants; low-certainty evidence) or depression (OR 0.79 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 6 studies, 1835 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. The results also suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.25; 7 studies, 1486 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. Results for service utilisation (contacts) suggest there may be little or no difference in service utilisation in terms of contacts between the patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment groups; however, the effect is not certain as the rate ratio ranged from 0.68 to 3.83 across the studies (median rate ratio 1.11, interquartile (IQR) 0.93 to 1.37; 15 studies, 3348 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if service utilisation (costs) are reduced in the patient-initiated compared to the consultant-led appointment groups (8 studies, 2235 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The results suggest that adverse events such as relapses in some conditions (inflammatory bowel disease and cancer) may have little or no reduction in the patient-initiated appointment group in comparison with the consultant-led appointment group (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.14; 3 studies, 888 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results are unclear about any differences the intervention may make to patient satisfaction (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.52; 2 studies, 375 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is low, as each study used different questions to collect their data at different time points and across different health conditions. Some areas of risk of bias across all the included studies was consistently high (i.e. for blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment, other areas were largely of low risk of bias or were affected by poor reporting making the assessment unclear). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on patient anxiety, depression and quality of life compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Other aspects of disease status and experience also appear to show little or no difference between patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on service utilisation in terms of service contact and there is uncertainty about costs compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on adverse events such as relapse or patient satisfaction compared to consultant-led appointment systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Whear
- University of Exeter Medical SchoolNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC)St Luke's CampusUniversity of ExeterExeterDevonUKEX1 2LU
| | - Joanna Thompson‐Coon
- University of Exeter Medical SchoolNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC)St Luke's CampusUniversity of ExeterExeterDevonUKEX1 2LU
| | - Morwenna Rogers
- University of Exeter Medical SchoolNIHR PenCLAHRC, Institute of Health ResearchExeterDevonUKEX1 2LU
| | - Rebecca A Abbott
- University of Exeter Medical SchoolNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC)St Luke's CampusUniversity of ExeterExeterDevonUKEX1 2LU
| | - Lindsey Anderson
- University of Exeter Medical SchoolInstitute of Health ResearchVeysey Building, Salmon Pool LaneExeterUKEX2 4SG
| | - Obioha Ukoumunne
- University of Exeter Medical SchoolNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC)St Luke's CampusUniversity of ExeterExeterDevonUKEX1 2LU
| | - Justin Matthews
- University of Exeter Medical SchoolNIHR PenCLAHRC, Institute of Health ResearchExeterDevonUKEX1 2LU
| | - Victoria A Goodwin
- University of Exeter Medical SchoolNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC)St Luke's CampusUniversity of ExeterExeterDevonUKEX1 2LU
| | - Simon Briscoe
- University of Exeter Medical SchoolNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC)St Luke's CampusUniversity of ExeterExeterDevonUKEX1 2LU
| | - Mark Perry
- Derriford HospitalRheumatologyPlymouthDevonUKPL6 8DH
| | - Ken Stein
- University of Exeter Medical School, University of ExeterPeninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG)Salmon Pool LaneExeterUKEX2 4SG
| | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Hill RE, Wakefield CE, Cohn RJ, Fardell JE, Brierley ME, Kothe E, Jacobsen PB, Hetherington K, Mercieca‐Bebber R. Survivorship Care Plans in Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Care Plan Outcomes. Oncologist 2020; 25:e351-e372. [PMID: 32043786 PMCID: PMC7011634 DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0184] [Citation(s) in RCA: 100] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2019] [Accepted: 09/06/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Institute of Medicine recommends that survivorship care plans (SCPs) be included in cancer survivorship care. Our meta-analysis compares patient-reported outcomes between SCP and no SCP (control) conditions for cancer survivors. Our systematic review examines the feasibility of implementing SCPs from survivors' and health care professionals' perspectives and the impact of SCPs on health care professionals' knowledge and survivorship care provision. METHODS We searched seven online databases (inception to April 22, 2018) for articles assessing SCP feasibility and health care professional outcomes. Randomized controlled trials comparing patient-reported outcomes for SCP recipients versus controls were eligible for the meta-analysis. We performed random-effects meta-analyses using pooled standardized mean differences for each patient-reported outcome. RESULTS Eight articles were eligible for the meta-analysis (n = 1,286 survivors) and 50 for the systematic review (n = 18,949 survivors; n = 3,739 health care professionals). There were no significant differences between SCP recipients and controls at 6 months postintervention on self-reported cancer and survivorship knowledge, physical functioning, satisfaction with information provision, or self-efficacy or at 12 months on anxiety, cancer-specific distress, depression, or satisfaction with follow-up care. SCPs appear to be acceptable and potentially improve survivors' adherence to medical recommendations and health care professionals' knowledge of survivorship care and late effects. CONCLUSION SCPs appear feasible but do not improve survivors' patient-reported outcomes. Research should ascertain whether this is due to SCP ineffectiveness, implementation issues, or inappropriate research design of comparative effectiveness studies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Several organizations recommend that cancer survivors receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) after their cancer treatment; however, the impact of SCPs on cancer survivors and health care professionals is unclear. This systematic review suggests that although SCPs appear to be feasible and may improve health care professionals' knowledge of late effects and survivorship care, there is no evidence that SCPs affect cancer survivors' patient-reported outcomes. In order to justify the ongoing implementation of SCPs, additional research should evaluate SCP implementation and the research design of comparative effectiveness studies. Discussion may also be needed regarding the possibility that SCPs are fundamentally ineffective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca E. Hill
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) SydneyRandwickAustralia
- Behavioural Sciences Unit, Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's HospitalRandwickAustralia
| | - Claire E. Wakefield
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) SydneyRandwickAustralia
- Behavioural Sciences Unit, Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's HospitalRandwickAustralia
| | - Richard J. Cohn
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) SydneyRandwickAustralia
- Behavioural Sciences Unit, Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's HospitalRandwickAustralia
| | - Joanna E. Fardell
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) SydneyRandwickAustralia
- Behavioural Sciences Unit, Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's HospitalRandwickAustralia
| | - Mary‐Ellen E. Brierley
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) SydneyRandwickAustralia
- Behavioural Sciences Unit, Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's HospitalRandwickAustralia
| | - Emily Kothe
- School of Psychology, Deakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
| | | | - Kate Hetherington
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) SydneyRandwickAustralia
- Behavioural Sciences Unit, Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's HospitalRandwickAustralia
| | - Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) SydneyRandwickAustralia
- Behavioural Sciences Unit, Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's HospitalRandwickAustralia
- National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Clinical Trials Centre, The University of SydneyCamperdownAustralia
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Taylor J, Fradgley EA, Clinton-McHarg T, Roach D, Paul CL. Distress screening and supportive care referrals used by telephone-based health services: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer 2019; 28:2059-2069. [PMID: 31872298 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-05252-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2019] [Accepted: 12/16/2019] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE People affected by chronic diseases such as cancer report high levels of distress and a need for psychosocial support. It is unclear whether telephone-based services for people affected by chronic disease are a practical setting for implementing distress screening, referral protocols and rescreening to direct supportive care where it is needed. This systematic review aimed to describe the published literature regarding distress screening and supportive care referral practices in telephone-based services for people affected by chronic diseases such as cancer. METHODS A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane and Scopus was conducted in February 2018. Included quantitative studies involved: patients or caregivers affected by chronic diseases including cancer and describe a health service assessing psychosocial needs or distress via telephone. Extracted data included the type of cancer or other chronic disease, sample size, screening tool, referral or rescreening protocols, and type of health service. RESULTS The search identified 3989 potential articles with additional searches returning 30 studies (n = 4019); fourteen were eligible for full-text review. Of the 14 studies, 13 included cancer patients. Studies were across multiple settings and identified nine distress screening tools in use. CONCLUSION The reviewed studies indicate that validated distress-screening tools are being used via telephone to identify distress, particularly in relation to cancer. Screening-driven supportive care referrals are also taking place in telephone-based services. However, not all services use an established referral protocol. Ongoing rescreening of callers' distress is also limited despite it being an important recommendation from psycho-oncology guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jo Taylor
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Level 4 West, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia. .,Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, Level 4 West, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia. .,Priority Research Centre for Cancer Research Innovation and Translation, Level 4 West, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
| | - Elizabeth A Fradgley
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Level 4 West, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.,Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, Level 4 West, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.,Priority Research Centre for Cancer Research Innovation and Translation, Level 4 West, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.,Cancer Institute New South Wales, Level 9, 8 Central Ave, Australian Technology Park, Eveleigh, NSW, 2015, Australia
| | - Tara Clinton-McHarg
- Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, Level 4 West, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.,Priority Research Centre for Cancer Research Innovation and Translation, Level 4 West, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.,School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia
| | - Della Roach
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Level 4 West, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.,Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, Level 4 West, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia
| | - Chris L Paul
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Level 4 West, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.,Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, Level 4 West, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.,Priority Research Centre for Cancer Research Innovation and Translation, Level 4 West, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Prostate cancer treatment choices: the GP's role in shared decision making. Br J Gen Pract 2019; 69:588-589. [PMID: 31780467 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19x706685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/31/2022] Open
|
38
|
Høeg BL, Bidstrup PE, Karlsen RV, Friberg AS, Albieri V, Dalton SO, Saltbæk L, Andersen KK, Horsboel TA, Johansen C. Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 2019:CD012425. [PMID: 31750936 PMCID: PMC6870787 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012425.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear. OBJECTIVES The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality. MAIN RESULTS We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beverley L Høeg
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
| | - Pernille E Bidstrup
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
| | - Randi V Karlsen
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
| | - Anne Sofie Friberg
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
- Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University HospitalDepartment of OncologyCopenhagenDenmark
| | - Vanna Albieri
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterStatistics and Pharmaco‐Epidemiology UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenDenmark
| | - Susanne O Dalton
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
- Zealand University HospitalDepartment of OncologyNæstvedDenmark
| | - Lena Saltbæk
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
- Zealand University HospitalDepartment of OncologyNæstvedDenmark
| | - Klaus Kaae Andersen
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterStatistics and Pharmaco‐Epidemiology UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenDenmark
| | - Trine Allerslev Horsboel
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
| | - Christoffer Johansen
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
- Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University HospitalDepartment of OncologyCopenhagenDenmark
| | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Kang J, Park EJ, Lee J. Cancer Survivorship in Primary Care. Korean J Fam Med 2019; 40:353-361. [PMID: 31779063 PMCID: PMC6887764 DOI: 10.4082/kjfm.19.0108] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2019] [Revised: 10/25/2019] [Accepted: 10/30/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
With the early detection of cancer and improvement in cancer therapy, the number of cancer survivors is rapidly increasing. This number is expected to reach 2 million by the end of 2019. Cancer survivors struggle with not only cancer-related health problems but also diverse acute and chronic diseases. These health issues make cancer survivorship more complex, and proper care coordination is necessary. This study aimed to summarize the definition of cancer experience and management of cancer survivors, specifically focused on gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, thyroid, prostate, and cervical cancers. Furthermore, it aimed to discuss the role of primary care in cancer survivorship and survivorship care models and the National Policy for Cancer Survivors and Future Challenges.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jihun Kang
- Department of Family Medicine, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea
| | - Eun Ju Park
- Department of Family Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea
| | - Jungkwon Lee
- Department of Family Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
IJsbrandy C, Hermens RPMG, Boerboom LWM, Gerritsen WR, van Harten WH, Ottevanger PB. Implementing physical activity programs for patients with cancer in current practice: patients' experienced barriers and facilitators. J Cancer Surviv 2019; 13:703-712. [PMID: 31347009 PMCID: PMC6828940 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-019-00789-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2019] [Accepted: 07/11/2019] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Purpose The present study aimed to identify patients’ experienced barriers and facilitators in implementing physical activity programs for patients with cancer. Methods We interviewed 34 patients in focus-group-interviews from three different hospital-types. We included patients with cancer who were either receiving curative treatment or had recently completed it. Barriers and facilitators were explored in six domains: (1) physical activity programs, (2) patients, (3) healthcare professionals (HCPs), (4) social setting, (5) organization, and (6) law and governance. Results We found 12 barriers and 1 facilitator that affect the implementation of physical activity programs. In the domain of physical activity programs, the barrier was physical activity programs not being tailored to the patient’s needs. In the domain of patients, lacking responsibility for one’s own health was a barrier. Knowledge and skills for physical activity programs and non-commitment of HCPs impeded implementation in the domain of HCPs. Barriers in the domain of organization included inconvenient place, time of day, and point in the health treatment schedule for offering the physical activity programs, inadequate capacity, inaccessibility of contact persons, lack of information about physical activity programs, non-involvement of the general practitioner in the cancer care process, and poor communication between secondary and primary HCPs. Insufficient insurance-coverage of physical activity programs was a barrier in the domain of law and governance. In the domain of physical activity programs, contact with peers facilitated implementation. We found no barriers or facilitators at the social setting. Conclusions Factors affecting the implementation of physical activity programs occurred in various domains. Most of the barriers occurred in the domain of organization. Implications for Cancer survivors An implementation strategy that deals with the barriers might improve the implementation of physical activity programs and quality of life of cancer survivors. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11764-019-00789-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte IJsbrandy
- Radboud Institute for Health Science (RIHS), Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Radboud Institute for Health Science (RIHS), Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Rosella P. M. G. Hermens
- Radboud Institute for Health Science (RIHS), Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Laura W. M. Boerboom
- Radboud Institute for Health Science (RIHS), Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Winald R. Gerritsen
- Radboud Institute for Health Science (RIHS), Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Wim H. van Harten
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, MB-HTSR, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Petronella B. Ottevanger
- Radboud Institute for Health Science (RIHS), Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
The role of primary care in supporting patients living with and beyond cancer. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 2019; 12:261-267. [PMID: 30074923 DOI: 10.1097/spc.0000000000000369] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The prevalence of cancer survivors is increasing. Those living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis have a range of physical, psychosocial and practical needs. This review aims to discuss the role of primary care in meeting these needs. RECENT FINDINGS Patients have increased contact with primary care after a cancer diagnosis but the role of the primary care team in the formal delivery of cancer aftercare is not clearly defined and varies depending on setting and context. Research suggests that both patients and health professionals are receptive to greater involvement of primary care, with informational and personal continuity of care, and good co-ordination of care being particularly valued by patients. Recent evidence indicates that shared care between oncologists and primary care physicians can be as effective as and more cost effective than secondary care-led follow-up, and that primary-care nurses could play a role in optimizing survivorship care. SUMMARY The four pillars of primary care - contact, comprehensiveness, continuity and coordination - are recurring themes in the cancer survivorship literature and emphasize that the traditional core values of general practice lend themselves to innovative interventions to improve the efficiency and efficacy of survivorship care.
Collapse
|
42
|
Alfano CM, Jefford M, Maher J, Birken SA, Mayer DK. Building Personalized Cancer Follow-up Care Pathways in the United States: Lessons Learned From Implementation in England, Northern Ireland, and Australia. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2019; 39:625-639. [PMID: 31099658 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_238267] [Citation(s) in RCA: 70] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
There is a global need to transform cancer follow-up care to address the needs of cancer survivors while efficiently using the health care system to limit the effects of provider shortages, gaps in provider knowledge, and already overburdened clinics; improve the mental health of clinicians; and limit costs to health care systems and patients. England, Northern Ireland, and Australia are implementing an approach that triages patients to personalized follow-up care pathways depending on the types and levels of resources needed for patients' long-term care that has been shown to meet patients' needs, more efficiently use the health care system, and reduce costs. This article discusses lessons learned from these implementation efforts, identifying the necessary components of these care models and barriers and facilitators to implementation of this care. Specifically, the United States and other countries looking to transform follow-up care should consider how to develop six key principles of this care: algorithms to triage patients to pathways; methods to assess patient issues to guide care; remote monitoring systems; methods to support patients in self-management; ways to coordinate care and information exchange between oncology, primary care, specialists, and patients; and methods to engage all stakeholders and secure their ongoing buy-in. Next steps to advance this work in the United States are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Michael Jefford
- 2 The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jane Maher
- 3 Macmillan Cancer Support, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah A Birken
- 4 Gillings School of Global Public Health & Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Deborah K Mayer
- 5 School of Nursing and Linegerger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC and National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Efficacy of a web-based women's health survivorship care plan for young breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019; 176:579-589. [PMID: 31054032 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-019-05260-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2019] [Accepted: 04/26/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Breast cancer survivorship care plans (SCP) have limited content addressing women's health issues. This trial tested if young breast cancer survivors who receive a web-based, women's health SCP were more likely to improve on at least one of the four targeted issues (hot flashes, fertility-related concerns, contraception, and vaginal symptoms) compared to attention controls. METHODS A randomized controlled trial recruited female survivors ages 18-45 at diagnosis, 18-50 at enrollment, completed primary cancer treatment, and had a significant women's health issue: moderate or higher fertility-related concerns; ≥ 4 hot flashes/day with ≥ 1 of moderate severity; ≥ 1 moderate vaginal atrophy symptoms; or not contracepting/using less effective methods. Survivors underwent stratified, block randomization with equal allocation to intervention and control groups. The intervention group accessed the online SCP; controls accessed curated resource lists. In intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome of improvement in at least one issue by 24 weeks was compared by group. RESULTS 182 participants (86 intervention, 96 control), mean age 40.0 ± 5.9 and 4.4 ± 3.2 years since diagnosis, were randomized. 61 intervention group participants (70.9%) improved, compared to 55 controls (57.3%) (OR 1.82, 95% CI 0.99-3.4, p = 0.057). The following issue-specific improvements were observed in the intervention versus control arms: fertility-related concerns (27.9% vs. 14.6%, OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.8); hot flashes (58.5% vs. 55.8%, OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.57-2.2); vaginal symptoms (42.5% vs. 40.7%, OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.0); contraception (50% vs. 42.6%, OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.74-2.5). CONCLUSIONS In young breast cancer survivors, a novel, web-based SCP did not result in more change in the primary outcome of improvement in at least one of the four targeted women's health issues, than the attention control condition. The intervention was associated with improved infertility concerns, supporting efficacy of disseminating accessible, evidence-based women's health information to this population.
Collapse
|
44
|
Viscuse P, Yost KJ, Jenkins S, Lackore K, Habermann T, Thanarajasingam G, Thompson C. Impact of lymphoma survivorship clinic visit on patient-centered outcomes. J Cancer Surviv 2019; 13:344-352. [PMID: 31028525 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-019-00756-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2018] [Accepted: 03/28/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Cancer survivors may experience physical, social, and emotional effects of cancer and its treatments. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend the development of a survivorship care plan (SCP) for cancer patients following completion of treatment with curative intent. Our institution developed a lymphoma survivorship clinic (SC) to assess patient needs, provide education, and create and deliver SCPs. This study analyzed the impact of a SC visit on patient-centered outcomes. METHODS Surveys were sent to lymphoma patients at Mayo Clinic Rochester within 4 weeks of their post-treatment visit to the SC that queried patient-reported outcomes, including experience of care, quality of life (QOL), and distress. We compared survey responses between those who attended the SC and those who were eligible but did not attend. RESULTS From November 2013 to May 2015, 236 lymphoma patients were surveyed, 96 of whom had a SC visit and 140 of who were eligible but did not attend. Those who attended the SC were more likely to "definitely" recall discussion on improving health, preventing illness, and making changes in habits/lifestyle, diet, and exercise. There were no differences in QOL or distress. Adjusted analyses revealed that SC attendance was associated with better self-reported overall health among younger patients and better physical well-being in Hodgkin lymphoma patients compared to those with other subtypes of lymphoma. CONCLUSIONS Participation in the lymphoma SC improved patient education on survivorship issues, particularly health behaviors. There may be a particular benefit in younger patients. However, there were no differences in QOL or distress. Further study is needed to determine if improved survivorship education and SCP delivery leads to long-term health benefits in cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS Our study evaluates the clinical impact of a SC in patients treated for lymphoma. We demonstrate that a SC visit improves patient education regarding health behaviors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Viscuse
- Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Kathleen J Yost
- Department of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Sarah Jenkins
- Department of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Kandace Lackore
- Department of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Thomas Habermann
- Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Gita Thanarajasingam
- Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Carrie Thompson
- Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Clarke AL, Roscoe J, Appleton R, Dale J, Nanton V. "My gut feeling is we could do more..." a qualitative study exploring staff and patient perspectives before and after the implementation of an online prostate cancer-specific holistic needs assessment. BMC Health Serv Res 2019; 19:115. [PMID: 30755188 PMCID: PMC6373080 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-3941-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2018] [Accepted: 01/31/2019] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Men surviving prostate cancer report a wide range of unmet needs. Holistic needs assessments (HNA) are designed to capture these, but are traditionally paper-based, generic, and only carried out in secondary care despite national initiatives advocating a “shared care” approach. We developed an online prostate cancer-specific HNA (sHNA) built into existing IT healthcare infrastructure to provide a platform for service integration. Barriers and facilitators to implementation and use of the sHNA were explored from both the patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) perspectives. Methods This qualitative study consisted of two phases. Phase 1 used semi-structured interviews to explore HCPs (n = 8) and patients (n = 10) perceptions of the sHNA, prior to implementation. Findings were used to develop an implementation strategy. Phase 2 used semi-structured interviews to explore HCPs (n = 4) and patients (n = 7) experienced barriers and motivators to using the sHNA, 9 to 12 months after implementation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Themes were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results HCPs and patients anticipated many benefits from using the sHNA. Barriers to implementation included: confidence to work in depth with prostate cancer patients, organisational and cultural change, and patient factors. Our implementation strategy addressed these barriers by the provision of disease specific training delivered in part by a clinical nurse specialist; and a peer-led IT supporter. Following implementation HCPs and patients perceived the sHNA as beneficial to their practice and care, respectively. However, some patients experienced barriers in using the sHNA related predominately to symptom perception and time since treatment. HCPs suggested minor software refinements. Conclusions This work supports the importance of identifying barriers and motivators to implementation, and using targeted action via the development of an implementation strategy to address these. Whilst this process should be on-going, undertaking this work at an early stage will help to optimise the implementation of the sHNA for future trials. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-3941-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy L Clarke
- Unit of Academic Primary Care, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Room A115, First Floor, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
| | - Julia Roscoe
- Unit of Academic Primary Care, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Room A115, First Floor, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
| | - Rebecca Appleton
- Unit of Academic Primary Care, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Room A115, First Floor, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
| | - Jeremy Dale
- Unit of Academic Primary Care, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Room A115, First Floor, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
| | - Veronica Nanton
- Unit of Academic Primary Care, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Room A115, First Floor, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Nazim SM, Fawzy M, Bach C, Ather MH. Multi-disciplinary and shared decision-making approach in the management of organ-confined prostate cancer. Arab J Urol 2018; 16:367-377. [PMID: 30534434 PMCID: PMC6277278 DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2018.06.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2018] [Revised: 06/12/2018] [Accepted: 06/18/2018] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Decision-making in the management of organ-confined prostate cancer is complex as it is based on multi-factorial considerations. It is complicated by a multitude of issues, which are related to the patient, treatment, disease, availability of equipment(s), expertise, and physicians. Combination of all these factors play a major role in the decision-making process and provide for an interactive decision-making preferably in the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting. MDT decisions are comprehensive and are often based on all factors including patients' biological status, disease and its aggressiveness, and physician and centres' expertise. However, one important and often under rated factor is patient-related factors. There is considerable evidence that patients and physicians have different goals for treatment and physicians' understanding of their own patients' preferences is not accurate. Several patient-related key factors have been identified such as age, religious beliefs, sexual health, educational background, and cognitive impairment. We have focused on these areas and highlight some key factors that need to be taken considered whilst counselling a patient and understanding his choice of treatment, which might not always be match with the clinicians' recommendation.
Collapse
Key Words
- (EB)RT, (external beam) radiotherapy
- ADT, androgen-deprivation therapy
- AS, active surveillance
- CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index
- Decision-making
- ECE, extracapsular extension
- MDT, multi-disciplinary team
- Multi-disciplinary team (MDT)
- NCCN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network
- Patients’ preferences
- Prostate cancer
- QoL, quality of life
- RCT, randomised controlled trial
- RP, radical prostatectomy
- mpMRI, multiparametric MRI
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Syed M. Nazim
- Department of Urology, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
| | - Mohamed Fawzy
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany
| | - Christian Bach
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany
| | - M. Hammad Ather
- Department of Urology, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
de Rooij BH, Ezendam NPM, Vos MC, Pijnenborg JMA, Boll D, Kruitwagen RFPM, van de Poll-Franse LV. Patients' information coping styles influence the benefit of a survivorship care plan in the ROGY Care Trial: New insights for tailored delivery. Cancer 2018; 125:788-797. [PMID: 30500067 PMCID: PMC6587821 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31844] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2018] [Revised: 09/14/2018] [Accepted: 09/27/2018] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In efforts to improve the implementation of survivorship care plans (SCPs), the authors assessed whether the impact of SCPs on patient-reported outcomes differed between patients with an information-seeking coping style (monitoring) versus those with an information-avoiding coping style (blunting). METHODS In the Registration System Oncological Gynecology (ROGY) Care Trial, 12 hospitals in the Netherlands were randomized to deliver SCP care or usual care. All patients with newly diagnosed endometrial and ovarian cancer in the SCP care arm received an SCP that was generated automatically by their oncology provider through the web-based ROGY registration system. Outcomes (satisfaction with information provision and care, illness perceptions, and health care use) were measured directly after initial treatment and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Information coping style was measured at 12 months after initial treatment. RESULTS Among patients who had a monitoring coping style (N = 123), those in the SCP care arm reported higher satisfaction with information provision (mean score: 73.9 vs 63.9, respectively; P = .04) and care (mean score: 74.5 vs 69.2, respectively; P = .03) compared with those in the usual care arm. Among patients who had a blunting coping style (N = 102), those in the SCP care arm reported a higher impact of the disease on life (mean score: 5.0 vs 4.5, respectively; P = .02) and a higher emotional impact of the disease (mean score: 5.4 vs 4.2, respectively; P = .01) compared with those in the usual care arm. CONCLUSIONS SCPs may be beneficial for patients who desire information about their disease, whereas SCPs may be less beneficial for patients who avoid medical information, suggesting a need for tailored SCP delivery to improve survivorship care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Belle H de Rooij
- Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases (CoRPS), Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.,The Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Nicole P M Ezendam
- Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases (CoRPS), Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.,The Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - M Caroline Vos
- Gynecologic Cancer Center South, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg and Waalwijk, the Netherlands
| | - Johanna M A Pijnenborg
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Dorry Boll
- Department of Gynecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Roy F P M Kruitwagen
- Department of Gynecology and GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse
- Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases (CoRPS), Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.,The Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht, the Netherlands.,Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Abstract
Objectives To determine whether the shared care model during the follow-up of cancer survivors is effective in terms of patient-reported outcomes, clinical outcomes, and continuity of care. Methods Using systematic review methods, studies were searched from six electronic databases-MEDLINE (n = 474), British Nursing Index (n = 320), CINAHL (n = 437), Cochrane Library (n = 370), HMIC (n = 77), and Social Care Online (n = 210). The review considered all health-related outcomes that evaluated the effectiveness of shared care for cancer survivors. Results Eight randomised controlled trials and three descriptive papers were identified. The results showed the likelihood of similar effectiveness between shared care and usual care in terms of quality of life, mental health outcomes, unmet needs, and clinical outcomes in cancer survivorship. The reviewed studies indicated that shared care overall is highly acceptable to cancer survivors and primary care practitioners, and shared care might be cheaper than usual care. Conclusions The results from this review suggest that the patient satisfaction of shared care is higher than usual care, and the effectiveness of shared care is similar to usual care in cancer survivorship. Interventions that formally involve primary care and improve the communication between primary care and hospital care could support the PCPs in the follow-up.
Collapse
|
49
|
Jacobsen PB, DeRosa AP, Henderson TO, Mayer DK, Moskowitz CS, Paskett ED, Rowland JH. Systematic Review of the Impact of Cancer Survivorship Care Plans on Health Outcomes and Health Care Delivery. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36:2088-2100. [PMID: 29775389 PMCID: PMC6036622 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.77.7482] [Citation(s) in RCA: 157] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Numerous organizations recommend that patients with cancer receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) comprising a treatment summary and follow-up care plans. Among current barriers to implementation are providers' concerns about the strength of evidence that SCPs improve outcomes. This systematic review evaluates whether delivery of SCPs has a positive impact on health outcomes and health care delivery for cancer survivors. Methods Randomized and nonrandomized studies evaluating patient-reported outcomes, health care use, and disease outcomes after delivery of SCPs were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library. Data extracted by independent raters were summarized on the basis of qualitative synthesis. Results Eleven nonrandomized and 13 randomized studies met inclusion criteria. Variability was evident across studies in cancer types, SCP delivery timing and method, SCP recipients and content, SCP-related counseling, and outcomes assessed. Nonrandomized study findings yielded descriptive information on satisfaction with care and reactions to SCPs. Randomized study findings were generally negative for the most commonly assessed outcomes (ie, physical, functional, and psychological well-being); findings were positive in single studies for other outcomes, including amount of information received, satisfaction with care, and physician implementation of recommended care. Conclusion Existing research provides little evidence that SCPs improve health outcomes and health care delivery. Possible explanations include heterogeneity in study designs and the low likelihood that SCP delivery alone would influence distal outcomes. Findings are limited but more positive for proximal outcomes (eg, information received) and for care delivery, particularly when SCPs are accompanied by counseling to prepare survivors for future clinical encounters. Recommendations for future research include focusing to a greater extent on evaluating ways to ensure SCP recommendations are subsequently acted on as part of ongoing care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul B. Jacobsen
- Paul B. Jacobsen, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Antonio P. DeRosa, Weill Cornell Medicine; Chaya S. Moskowitz, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Tara O. Henderson, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Deborah K. Mayer, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Electra D. Paskett, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and Julia H. Rowland, Smith Center for Healing and the Arts, Washington, DC
| | - Antonio P. DeRosa
- Paul B. Jacobsen, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Antonio P. DeRosa, Weill Cornell Medicine; Chaya S. Moskowitz, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Tara O. Henderson, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Deborah K. Mayer, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Electra D. Paskett, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and Julia H. Rowland, Smith Center for Healing and the Arts, Washington, DC
| | - Tara O. Henderson
- Paul B. Jacobsen, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Antonio P. DeRosa, Weill Cornell Medicine; Chaya S. Moskowitz, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Tara O. Henderson, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Deborah K. Mayer, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Electra D. Paskett, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and Julia H. Rowland, Smith Center for Healing and the Arts, Washington, DC
| | - Deborah K. Mayer
- Paul B. Jacobsen, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Antonio P. DeRosa, Weill Cornell Medicine; Chaya S. Moskowitz, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Tara O. Henderson, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Deborah K. Mayer, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Electra D. Paskett, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and Julia H. Rowland, Smith Center for Healing and the Arts, Washington, DC
| | - Chaya S. Moskowitz
- Paul B. Jacobsen, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Antonio P. DeRosa, Weill Cornell Medicine; Chaya S. Moskowitz, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Tara O. Henderson, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Deborah K. Mayer, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Electra D. Paskett, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and Julia H. Rowland, Smith Center for Healing and the Arts, Washington, DC
| | - Electra D. Paskett
- Paul B. Jacobsen, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Antonio P. DeRosa, Weill Cornell Medicine; Chaya S. Moskowitz, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Tara O. Henderson, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Deborah K. Mayer, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Electra D. Paskett, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and Julia H. Rowland, Smith Center for Healing and the Arts, Washington, DC
| | - Julia H. Rowland
- Paul B. Jacobsen, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Antonio P. DeRosa, Weill Cornell Medicine; Chaya S. Moskowitz, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Tara O. Henderson, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Deborah K. Mayer, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Electra D. Paskett, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and Julia H. Rowland, Smith Center for Healing and the Arts, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Supporting prostate cancer survivors in primary care: Findings from a pilot trial of a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention (PROSPECTIV). Eur J Oncol Nurs 2018; 32:73-81. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2017.12.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2017] [Revised: 12/01/2017] [Accepted: 12/05/2017] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|