Patient Preferences for Primary Care Provider Roles in Breast Cancer Survivorship Care

Primary care provider-led cancer survivorship care in the first 5 years following initial cancer treatment: a scoping review of the barriers and solutions to implementation

PURPOSE

To synthesize the barriers to primary care provider (PCP)-led cancer survivorship care (≤ 5 years after initial cancer treatment) experienced by healthcare systems around the world, and to explore potential solutions that would succeed within a developed country.

METHODS

A scoping review of peer-reviewed articles and grey literature was conducted. Four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar) were searched for articles prior to April 2021.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven articles published across the globe (USA, Canada, Australia, European Union, and UK) met the review inclusion/exclusion criteria. The four most frequently discussed barriers to PCP-led survivorship care in healthcare systems were as follows: (1) insufficient communication between PCPs and cancer specialists, (2) limited PCP knowledge, (3) time restrictions for PCPs to provide comprehensive survivorship care, and (4) a lack of resources (e.g., survivorship care guidelines). Potential solutions to combat these barriers were as follows: (1) improving interdisciplinary communication, (2) bolstering PCP education, and (3) providing survivorship resources.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified and summarized key barriers and solutions to the provision of PCP-led cancer survivorship care. Importantly, the findings from this review provide insight and direction to guide optimization of cancer care practice within BC's healthcare system.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Optimizing the PCP-led survivorship care model will be a valuable contribution to the field of cancer survivorship care and will hopefully lead to more widespread use of this model, ultimately lessening the growing demand for cancer-specific care by cancer specialists.

Primary care provider attitudes about and tendency to use non-recommended surveillance tests after curative breast cancer treatment

PURPOSE

Little is known about the factors contributing to the receipt of non-recommended surveillance testing among early-stage breast cancer survivors. We assessed primary care providers (PCP) attitudes about and tendency to order non-recommended surveillance testing for asymptomatic early-stage breast cancer survivors post-adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by early-stage breast cancer survivors were surveyed (N = 518, 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how likely they would be to order bone scans, imaging and/or tumor marker testing using a clinical vignette of an early-stage asymptomatic patient where these tests are non-recommended. A composite tendency to order score was created and categorized by tertiles (low, moderate, high). PCP-reported factors associated with high and moderate tendency to order non-recommended testing (vs. low) were estimated using multivariable, multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

In this sample, 26% reported a high tendency to order non-recommended surveillance tests during survivorship for early-stage breast cancer survivors. PCPs who identified as family practice physicians and PCPs reporting more confidence in ordering surveillance testing were more likely to report a high tendency to order non-recommended testing (vs. low) ((aOR family practice 2.09, CI 1.2, 3.8; aOR more confidence 1.9, CI 1.1, 3.3).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based sample of PCPs caring for breast cancer survivors, over a quarter of PCPs reported they would order non-recommended surveillance testing for asymptomatic early-stage breast cancer survivors. Efforts to better support PCPs and disseminate information about appropriate surveillance for cancer survivors are warranted.

Suboptimal Cardiology Follow-Up Among Patients With and Without Cancer Hospitalized for Heart Failure

Many patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) do not receive recommended follow-up cardiology care, and non-White patients are less likely to receive follow-up than White patients. Poor HF management may be particularly problematic in patients with cancer because cardiovascular co-morbidity can delay cancer treatments. Therefore, we sought to describe outpatient cardiology care patterns in patients with cancer hospitalized for HF and to determine if receipt of follow-up varied by race/ethnicity. SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) data from 2007 to 2013 linked to Medicare claims from 2006 to 2014 were used. We included patients aged 66+ years with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer, and preexisting HF. Patients with cancer were matched to patients in a noncancer cohort that included individuals with HF and no cancer. The primary outcome was receipt of an outpatient, face-to-face cardiologist visit within 30 days of HF hospitalization. We compared follow-up rates between cancer and noncancer cohorts, and stratified analyses by race/ethnicity. A total of 2,356 patients with cancer and 2,362 patients without cancer were included. Overall, 43% of patients with cancer and 42% of patients without cancer received cardiologist follow-up (p = 0.30). After multivariable adjustment, White patients were 15% more likely to receive cardiology follow-up than Black patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.30). Black patients with cancer were 41% (95% CI 1.11 to 1.78) and Asian patients with cancer were 66% (95% CI 1.11 to 2.49) more likely to visit a cardiologist than their noncancer counterparts. In conclusion, less than half of patients with cancer hospitalized for HF received recommended follow-up with a cardiologist, and significant race-related differences in cardiology follow-up exist. Future studies should investigate the reasons for these differences.

Implementation of a model integrating primary and oncology pharmacists' care for patients taking oral anticancer agents (OAA)

Improvements in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and multiple myeloma (MM) treatment options have increased the 5-year survival rates for patients with these hematologic malignancies. In addition to cancer management, these patients may need help to manage multiple chronic conditions (MCC). The overall objective of this study is to examine the impact and implementation of a model that coordinates care between oncology and primary care pharmacists for people taking an oral anti-cancer agent (OAAs) and medications for comorbid chronic conditions. This is a multi-center, prospective, single-arm pilot study that will recruit up to 40 patients from Michigan Medicine and Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC). Eligible participants will be 18 years of age or older, prescribed an OAA, have a diagnosis of either CML, CLL or MM, and be diagnosed with and taking medication for at least two specified chronic conditions. The Pharmacists Coordinated Care Oncology Model (PCOM) is a two-month intervention that builds upon current pharmacist clinical responsibilities. Generally, participants will complete a patient-reported outcome measure at 2 and 6 weeks post-OAA initiation that is sent to their oncology pharmacist, and they will also receive a comprehensive medication review at week 4 from a primary care pharmacist for their chronic medications. The pharmacists will communicate about the results via electronic medical record (EMR) and intervene if necessary. The primary endpoints are (1) dose-adjusted OAA proportion of days covered (PDC), and (2) PDC for chronic condition medications. PDCs will be determined via prescription records. The association of OAA and chronic medication PDCs will be quantified via correlation and chi-squared tests. The association between symptom experience and OAA adherence will be examined via correlation analyses. For implementation, characteristics of patient participants, feasibility, acceptability, adoption, fidelity, and trialability will be described. Data will be collected via EMR and pharmacist and patient interviews. Median/IQR for acceptability, adoption and fidelity will be reported, and patient interviews will be analyzed using a grounded theory approach and pharmacist interviews will be analyzed using thematic analyses.

Primary Care Physicians' Perspectives in Leading Breast Cancer Follow-Up Care

INTRODUCTION

Limited data exist on the barriers associated with transitioning breast cancer follow-up care to primary care physicians (PCPs). This study aimed to describe the current perspectives of PCPs in managing breast cancer follow-up.

METHOD

An online survey was distributed to PCPs in Toronto, ON, Canada. Questions examined PCPs' view of transitioning breast cancer follow-up care to their practices.

RESULTS

Of 800 PCPs invited, 126 responded (response rate: 15.7%). The types of practice models amongst respondents included blended capitation (42.9%), blended salary (27%), and fee-for-service (17.5%). Seventy-seven percent of respondents stated they provided follow-up care. Approximately half of the respondents stated they were somewhat comfortable providing follow-up care. PCP-led follow-up care was considered either very (49.2%) or somewhat appropriate (30.2%). When asked about financial remuneration, 43.7% of respondents stated it was somewhat important. The factors that influenced the feasibility of PCP-led follow-up care included receipt of a detailed follow-up care plan provided by the specialist after discharge (81%), the ability to re-refer to specialists rapidly (56.3%), and the ability to obtain regular updates of best practice changes (59.5%). The preferred means of educational updates included E-mail (40.5%), continuing medical education events (30.2%), and electronic medical records (19.8%). When the fee model was taken into consideration there was no significant difference in opinions regarding follow-up care.

CONCLUSIONS

Transitioning to a PCP-led model was supported by most of the PCPs who participated in this study. Their perspective on PCP-led follow up care and barriers associated with implementation of this model of care needs to be further explored with future studies that include larger sample size and a more diverse PCP population.

Eliciting gastric cancer survivors' preferences for follow-up services: a discrete choice experiment protocol

INTRODUCTION

Follow-up care is important for gastric cancer survivors, but follow-up strategies for gastric cancer survivors remain inconsistent, and compliance of gastric cancer survivors with follow-up care is very low. Understanding the needs and preferences of gastric cancer survivors is conducive to developing appropriate and acceptable follow-up strategies, thereby improving patient compliance. Discrete choice experiments can quantify individual needs and preferences. However, to date, there is no discrete choice experiment on the preferences of gastric cancer survivors, and no studies have examined how gastric cancer survivors make choices based on different characteristics of follow-up. This paper outlines an ongoing discrete choice experiment that aims to (1) explore follow-up service-related characteristics that may affect gastric cancer survivors' choices about their follow-up, (2) elicit how gastric cancer survivors consider the trade-offs among different follow-up service options using discrete choice experiment, (3) determine whether gastric cancer survivors' needs and preferences for follow-up vary due to the economy, politics, technology and culture in different regions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Six attributes were developed through a literature review, semistructured interviews and experts and focus group discussions. A fractional factorial design was used to evaluate the interaction between attributes. A multiple logit model will be used to understand the trade-off between the follow-up characteristics of gastric cancer survivors. A mixed logit model will be used to explore the willingness to pay and uptake rate of gastric cancer survivors for follow-up attributes and further explore the preferences of different groups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the ethics committee of the School of Nursing, Jilin University. The results of this study will be shared through online blogs, policy briefs, seminars and peer-reviewed journal articles and will be used to modify the current strategy of gastric cancer survivors' follow-up services according to economic development and regional culture.

Large-scale North American cancer survivorship surveys: 2011-2019 update

PURPOSE

There are gaps in our knowledge to provide quality cancer care to the growing numbers of survivors. Leveraging existing data to answer survivorship research questions is one approach to address these gaps. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to replicate and expand a previous report of existing cancer survivorship survey data.

METHODS

We conducted a trifold search strategy for relevant surveys and data sets to (1) determine the extent to which cancer survivors are being surveyed, (2) determine the topics being covered in these surveys, and (3) create a compendium of information about these surveys and data sets, so researchers can conduct additional analyses.

RESULTS

Thirty-five surveys were identified and included in this report; most were longitudinal studies (71%) in adult cancer survivors (91%). The domains addressed in these surveys were general medical characteristics, medical conditions, costs, employment, symptoms and/or side effects, psychosocial factors and coping, perceived quality of care, and health behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing data are available for researchers to explore new knowledge to enhance cancer survivorship quality care. This is an opportunity to fully utilize existing data to answer survivorship questions in a cost effective manner.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Survivors should be encouraged to participate in research studies as these data can close the gap in our knowledge and care of this growing population.

Survivors' preferences for the organization and delivery of supportive care after treatment: An integrative review

PURPOSE

Quality supportive care during cancer survivorship contributes to positive physical and psychosocial health. However, the potential positive impacts are influenced by survivors' perceptions of and ability to access the supportive care services that they deem important to their well-being. The purpose of this integrative review was to examine cancer survivors' preferences for the organization and delivery of supportive care services in the post-treatment period.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for relevant quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. Included studies were analyzed using directed content analysis, focused on models of care and type of provider, site of care, specialized services, structural supports through transitions, and sources of information.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine studies were included. Overall, survivors' preferences are not static and fluctuate over time based on their perceived health needs, concerns and points of transition in care. While specialist supportive care led by consultant oncologists is often identified as the preferred model of care, survivors' also express preferences for integrated and shared models of care, involving oncology nurses, primary care and multidisciplinary professionals to optimise coordination and impact of supportive care. Flexibility in care delivery, leveraging technology and expertise, was preferred to ensure convenient and timely access to supportive care.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer survivors express preferences for the organization and delivery of supportive care in the post-treatment phase that fluctuate based on their perceived health needs. The development of novel survivorship health services must consider survivors' preferences and allow flexibility in care delivery to facilitate engagement, uptake, and effectiveness.

Survivorship Care Plan Preferences and Utilization Among Asian American Breast Cancer Survivors

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

The survivorship care plan (SCP) is an individualized document with cancer diagnosis, treatment, surveillance, and health promotion recommendations. This integrative review synthesizes the extant literature to understand preferences and utilization of SCPs among Asian American survivors.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The CINAHL®, Embase®, PsycINFO®, and PubMed® databases were searched for articles about Asian American women with breast or cervical cancer and SCPs.

DATA EVALUATION

Two independent reviewers evaluated 481 titles and abstracts according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of those 481 titles and abstracts, 14 articles were selected for inclusion.

SYNTHESIS

There was little evidence surrounding utilization of SCPs. Articles identified addressed only survivors of breast cancer, predominately of Southeast Asian descent. Asian American women with breast cancer reported preferences surrounding their survivorship needs. Barriers to delivery of the SCP were related to socioeconomic factors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

There is a paucity of information guiding evidence-based delivery of SCPs in the vastly heterogenous population of Asian American survivors. More work is needed to provide high-quality care to these survivors.

Improving the delivery of team-based survivorship care after primary breast cancer treatment through a multi-level intervention: a pilot randomized controlled trial

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.

Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Low Risk Prostate Cancer Management: Results of a National Survey

Introduction

Primary care providers can collaborate with urologists to ensure men with low risk prostate cancer on active surveillance receive followup testing and adhere to the management strategy, yet primary care provider attitudes about active surveillance and their roles remain unknown.

Methods

We surveyed 1,000 primary care providers (347/741 eligible primary care providers responded). We assessed primary care provider support for and beliefs about active surveillance, and attitudes about and preferences for their role in various aspects of low risk prostate cancer management. We then examined associations between 1) primary care provider support for and primary care provider beliefs about active surveillance; and 2) primary care provider attitudes and preferences for their role.

Results

Nearly 50% of primary care providers strongly supported active surveillance for all low risk men, and 81% strongly agreed that active surveillance allows men to avoid side effects, while 57% strongly agreed it caused worry. Primary care providers who strongly supported active surveillance were less likely to strongly agree that active surveillance contributes to worry (50.3% vs 63.7% respectively, p=0.01). Half of the primary care providers strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care (50.5%), and the majority preferred a shared care model to ordering prostate specific antigen tests (60.1%). Primary care providers who strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care were more likely to prefer a primary care provider-led (79.3% vs 20.7%) or shared care (53.9% vs 46.1%) model vs urologist-led for ordering prostate specific antigen tests (p <0.01).

Conclusions

While many primary care providers supported active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer, primary care providers still had concerns with it as the primary management strategy. Understanding primary care providers perspectives on low risk prostate cancer management can inform strategies to improve high quality active surveillance care.

Addressing disparities and challenges in underserved patient populations with metastatic breast cancer in Europe

People with metastatic breast cancer face many challenges and disparities in obtaining optimal cancer care. These challenges are accentuated in underserved patient populations across Europe, who are less likely to receive quality healthcare for reasons including socioeconomic inequalities, educational or cultural status, or geographic location. While there are many local and national initiatives targeted to address these challenges, there remains a need to reduce disparities and improve access to healthcare to improve outcomes, with a focus on multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement. In October 2019, a range of experts in metastatic breast cancer, including healthcare professionals, patient representatives, policymakers and politicians, met to discuss and prioritize the critical needs of underserved patient populations with metastatic breast cancer in Europe. Six key challenges faced by these communities were identified: the need for amplification of the metastatic breast cancer patient voice, better and wider implementation of high-quality guidelines for metastatic breast cancer, more collaboration between stakeholders, tailored support for patients from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, improved data sharing, and work-related issues. The Expert Panel then conceived and discussed potential actionable goals to address each key challenge. Their conclusions present a set of interrelated approaches to address the different challenges and could serve as the basis for concerted improvement of the lives of patients with metastatic breast cancer in Europe.

Cancer survivorship training in family medicine residency programs

PURPOSE

The objective of the study was to examine current family medicine residency education in cancer survivorship and barriers to cancer survivorship education in the residency curriculum.

METHODS

Family medicine residency program directors (n = 628) were surveyed electronically between September 2019 and November 2019 through the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) annual program directory survey. Respondents (n = 250) answered questions regarding eventual cancer survivorship curriculum in their residency program, including interest and barriers to implementation. Program characteristics were assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Only 9.2% of family medicine residency program directors reported having a cancer survivorship curriculum. Sixty-nine percent of program directors reported they would implement a cancer survivorship curriculum if one was available. The most significant barrier to implementation of a cancer survivorship curriculum was insufficient time (39.6%) followed by lack of faculty expertise (26.9%). Respondents that reported lack of faculty expertise as a barrier to implementation of cancer survivorship training were more likely be report that they would be willing to implement a cancer survivorship curriculum (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the majority of primary care physicians providing care to cancer survivors, few family medicine residency programs have formal training in cancer survivorship care. There is interest in expanding family medicine residency training in cancer survivorship care among program directors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Gaining insight into the current educational curriculum and barriers to cancer survivorship training will lead to opportunities to improve residency training, and ultimately provide better care to cancer survivors in primary care settings.

A population-based study of invitation to and participation in clinical trials among women with early-stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

Although many studies clearly demonstrate disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment, there is a lack of consensus on potential causes. Furthermore, virtually nothing is known about associations between patients' decision-making style and their participation in clinical trials.

METHODS

Women with newly diagnosed, stage 0-II breast cancer reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries in 2013-2014 were surveyed approximately seven months after diagnosis. We investigated two primary outcome variables: (1) invitation to participate in a clinical trial, (2) participation in a clinical trial. We evaluated bivariate associations using Chi-squared tests and used multivariable logistic regression models to investigate associations between patient variables, including decision-making style, and the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

2578 patients responded (71% response rate); 30% were > age 65, 18% were black, 18% were Latina, 29% had ≤ high school education. 10% of patients reported invitation to participate in a clinical trial; 5% reported participation in a clinical trial. After adjustment younger age, receipt of chemotherapy or radiation, disease stage, and a more rational (versus more intuitive) decision-making style were associated with a higher odds of invitation to participate. Being married was associated with a higher odds of participation; having an annual family income ≥ $40,000 was associated with a lower odds of participation.

CONCLUSIONS

10% of patients reported invitation to participate in a clinical trial, and half of these reported participation. Invitation to participate varied by age and decision-making style, and participation varied by marital status and income.

Primary Care Provider Involvement in Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Care

CONTEXT

While prior research has examined how primary care providers (PCPs) can care for breast and colon cancer survivors, little is known about their role in thyroid cancer survivorship.

OBJECTIVE

To understand PCP involvement and confidence in thyroid cancer survivorship care.

DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

We surveyed PCPs identified by thyroid cancer patients from the Georgia and LA SEER registries (n = 162, response rate 56%). PCPs reported their involvement in long-term surveillance and confidence in handling survivorship care (role of random thyroglobulin levels and neck ultrasound, and when to end long-term surveillance and refer back to the specialist). We examined: 1) PCP-reported factors associated with involvement using multivariable analyses; and 2) bivariate associations between involvement and confidence in handling survivorship care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PCP involvement (involved vs not involved) and confidence (high vs low).

RESULTS

Many PCPs (76%) reported being involved in long-term surveillance. Involvement was greater among PCPs who noted clinical guidelines as the most influential source in guiding treatment (OR 4.29; 95% CI, 1.56-11.82). PCPs reporting high confidence in handling survivorship varied by aspects of care: refer patient to specialist (39%), role of neck ultrasound (36%) and random thyroglobulin levels (27%), and end long-term surveillance (14%). PCPs reporting involvement were more likely to report high confidence in discussing the role of random thyroglobulin levels (33.3% vs 7.9% not involved; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

While PCPs reported being involved in long-term surveillance, gaps remain in their confidence in handling survivorship care. Thyroid cancer survivorship guidelines that delineate PCP roles present one opportunity to increase confidence about their participation.

Patient perspectives on primary care and oncology care coordination in the context of multiple chronic conditions: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patients' views on the optimal model for care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists in the context of cancer and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) are unclear. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the perceptions of patients with both cancer and MCC regarding their care coordination needs.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, the literature was systematically searched through PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for articles pertaining to patients' perspectives, experiences, and needs regarding care coordination between PCPs and oncologists during the cancer care continuum, in the context of patients with cancer and MCC. English-language articles were included if they met the following criteria: 1) published between 2008 and 2018; 2) peer-reviewed study; 3) patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with any type or stage of cancer; 4) patients have one or more chronic comorbid condition; 5) inclusion of patient perceptions, experiences, or needs related to care coordination between PCPs and oncologists; and 6) ability to extract results. Data extraction was performed with a standardized form, and themes were developed through qualitative synthesis. A grounded theory approach was used to qualitatively evaluate data extracted from articles and create a framework for providers to consider when developing patient-centered care coordination strategies for these complex patients. Risk of bias within each study was assessed independently by two authors using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

A total of 22 articles were retained, representing the perspectives of 8,114 patients with cancer and MCC. Studies were heterogeneous in the patients' respective phases of cancer care and study design. From qualitative synthesis, four themes emerged regarding patients' needs for cancer care coordination and were included as constructs to develop the Patient-centered Care Coordination among Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions and Cancer (PCP-MC) framework. Constructs included: 1) Communication; 2) Defining provider care roles; 3) Information access; and 4) Individualized patient care. Care navigators served as a communication bridge between providers and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the importance that patients with both cancer and MCC place on communication with and between providers, efficient access to understandable care information, defined provider care roles, and care tailored to their individual needs and circumstances. Providers and policymakers may consider the developed PCP-MC framework when designing, implementing, and evaluating patient-centered care coordination strategies for patients with both cancer and MCC.

Toward a health-promoting system for cancer survivors: Patient and provider multiple behavior change

OBJECTIVE

This paper examines how and why to improve care systems for disease management and health promotion for the growing population of cancer survivors with cardiovascular multi-morbidities.

METHOD

We reviewed research characterizing cancer survivors' and their multiple providers' common sense cognitive models of survivors' main health threats, preventable causes of adverse health events, and optimal coping strategies.

RESULTS

Findings indicate that no entity in the health care system self-identifies as claiming primary responsibility to address longstanding unhealthy lifestyle behaviors that heighten survivors' susceptibility to both cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and whose improvement could enhance quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

To address this gap, we propose systems-level changes that integrate health promotion into existing survivorship services by including behavioral risk factor vital signs in the electronic medical record, with default proactive referral to a health promotionist (a paraprofessional coach adept with mobile technologies and supervised by a professional expert in health behavior change). By using the patient's digital tracking data to coach remotely and periodically report progress to providers, the health promotionist closes a gap, creating a connected care system that supports, reinforces, and maintains accountability for healthy lifestyle improvement. No comparable resource solely dedicated to treatment of chronic disease risk behaviors (smoking, obesity, physical inactivity, treatment nonadherence) exists in current models of integrated care. Integrating health promotionists into care delivery channels would remove burden from overtaxed PCPs and instantiate a comprehensive, actionable systems-level schema of health risks and coping strategies needed to have preventive impact with minimal interference to clinical work flow. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Patterns and Correlates of Knowledge, Communication, and Receipt of Breast Reconstruction in a Modern Population-Based Cohort of Patients with Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Disparities persist in the receipt of breast reconstruction after mastectomy, and little is known about the nature of communication received by patients and potential variations that may exist.

METHODS

Women with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 to II) diagnosed between July of 2013 and September of 2014 were identified through the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries and surveyed to collect additional data on demographics, treatment, and decision-making experiences. Treating general/oncologic surgeons were also surveyed. Primary outcomes measures included self-reported communication-related measures on receipt of information on breast reconstruction and on the receipt of breast reconstruction.

RESULTS

The authors analyzed 936 women who underwent mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer. Four hundred eighty-four (51.7 percent) underwent mastectomy with reconstruction. Women who were older and for whom English was not their primary spoken language had lower odds of being informed by a doctor about breast reconstruction. Ultimately, women who were older, were Asian, had invasive disease, had bronchitis/emphysema, and had lower income were less likely to undergo breast reconstruction. Breast reconstruction was performed more often in patients undergoing bilateral mastectomies (OR, 3.27; 95 percent CI, 2.26 to 4.75). Women cared for by surgeons with higher volumes of breast cancer patients (≥51 patients per year) were more likely to undergo breast reconstruction (OR, 2.43; 95 percent CI, 1.40 to 4.20).

CONCLUSION

To eliminate existing disparities, increased efforts should be made in consultations for surgical management of breast cancer to provide information to all patients regarding the option of breast reconstruction, the possibility of immediate reconstruction, and insurance coverage of all stages of reconstruction.

The role of primary care in supporting patients living with and beyond cancer

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.

Primary care provider-reported involvement in breast cancer treatment decisions

BACKGROUND

Treatment decisions for patients with early-stage breast cancer often involve discussions with multiple oncology providers. However, the extent to which primary care providers (PCPs) are involved in initial treatment decisions remains unknown.

METHODS

A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by newly diagnosed patients with early-stage breast cancer from the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were surveyed (n = 517; a 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how frequently they discussed surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy options with patients; how comfortable they were with these discussions; whether they had the necessary knowledge to participate in decision making; and what their confidence was in their ability to help (on 5-item Likert-type scales). Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify PCP-reported attitudes associated with more PCP participation in each treatment decision.

RESULTS

In this sample, 34% of PCPs reported that they discussed surgery, 23% discussed radiation, and 22% discussed chemotherapy options with their patients. Of those who reported more involvement in surgical decisions, 22% reported that they were not comfortable having a discussion, and 17% did not feel that they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision making. PCPs who positively appraised their ability to participate were more likely to participate in all 3 decisions (odds ratio [OR] for surgery, 6.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-8.68; OR for radiation, 8.37; 95% CI, 5.16-13.58; OR for chemotherapy, 6.56; 95% CI, 4.23-10.17).

CONCLUSIONS

A third of PCPs reported participating in breast cancer treatment decisions, yet gaps in their knowledge about decision making and in their confidence in their ability to help exist. Efforts to increase PCPs' knowledge about breast cancer treatment options may be warranted.

Practice, Preferences, and Practical Tips From Primary Care Physicians to Improve the Care of Cancer Survivors

PURPOSE

There is a need to improve the coordination of care and communication between primary care physicians (PCPs) and oncology after completion of initial cancer treatment. We sought to evaluate PCP experiences and perspectives in cancer survivorship and to identify practical opportunities to improve care within an integrated health care system with a shared electronic health record (EHR).

METHODS

We conducted a self-administered, anonymous, electronic survey of PCPs in practices affiliated with an academic medical center to evaluate practices, the sense of preparedness, and preferences in the delivery of survivorship care and communication with oncology.

RESULTS

One hundred seventeen of 225 PCPs responded (response rate, 52%). A majority were engaged in survivorship care, with 94% reporting managing psychological sequelae of cancer, 84% managing chronic physical complications, 71% screening for cancer recurrence, and 60% screening for late complications. However, few PCPs felt prepared to manage these issues: 65% felt unprepared to screen for late complications, and 36% felt unprepared to screen for recurrence. Common barriers to survivorship care were uncertainty about delegation of responsibility (73%) and a lack of training (72%). PCPs expressed strong interest in survivorship care plans, preferring active tracking of ongoing care needs and delegation of care responsibility in the EHR active problem list over traditional summary documents.

CONCLUSION

Most PCPs are engaged in cancer survivorship care but report barriers to optimal care delivery. Opportunities to improve care could include targeted education to increase preparedness to deliver survivorship care, and optimization of communication among providers, including active survivorship care plans in the EHR.

Provider Involvement in Care During Initial Cancer Treatment and Patient Preferences for Provider Roles After Initial Treatment

PURPOSE

Patients report strong preferences regarding which provider-oncologist or primary care provider (PCP)-handles their primary care after initial cancer treatment (eg, other cancer screenings, preventive care, comorbidity management). Little is known about associations between provider involvement during initial cancer treatment and patient preferences for provider roles after initial treatment.

METHODS

Women who received a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer in 2014 to 2015 were identified from the Georgia and Los Angeles County SEER registries and surveyed (N = 2,502; 68% response rate). Women reported the level of their providers' involvement in their care during initial cancer treatment. Associations between level of medical oncologist's participation and PCP's engagement during initial cancer treatment and patient preferences for oncologist led ( v PCP led) other cancer screenings after initial treatment were examined using multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

During their initial cancer treatment, 20% of women reported medical oncologists participated substantially in delivering primary care and 66% reported PCPs were highly engaged in their cancer care. Two-thirds (66%) of women preferred medical oncologists to handle other cancer screenings after initial treatment. Women who reported substantial medical oncologist participation in primary care were more likely (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.91) and those who reported high PCP engagement in cancer care were less likely (adjusted odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.53) to prefer oncologist-led other cancer screenings after initial treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers' involvement during initial cancer treatment may affect patient preferences regarding provision of follow-up primary care. Clarifying provider roles as early as during cancer treatment may help to better delineate their roles throughout survivorship.

Developing innovative models of care for cancer survivors: use of implementation science to guide evaluation of appropriateness and feasibility

PURPOSE

Limited understanding of factors affecting uptake and outcomes of different cancer survivorship care models hampers implementation of best practices. We conducted a formative evaluation of stakeholder-perceived acceptability and feasibility of an embedded primary care provider (PCP) survivorship care model.

METHODS

We identified clinical, operational, and patient stakeholders within Kaiser Permanente Southern California and conducted semi-structured interviews. Analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), an integrated framework from the field of implementation science. Deductive thematic categories were derived a priori from CFIR domains; thematic sub-categories were developed inductively.

RESULTS

We interviewed 12 stakeholders; multiple themes were identified. Acceptability: oncologists and operational leaders perceived that the model was an acceptable solution to issues of capacity and efficiency with the potential to improve quality; however, several oncologists perceived negative consequences including "[loss of] the joy of medicine." Patients were less enthusiastic, fearing the introduction of "[someone] who doesn't know me." Feasibility: confidence was high that this model can succeed, although there was concern about finding the right PCP and investment in training and staff support. Culture/climate: numerous system-level facilitators were identified, including encouragement of innovation and familiarity with developing new models.

CONCLUSIONS

Formative evaluation is a critical pre-implementation process. Acceptability and feasibility for this model were high among oncologists and operational leaders but patients were ambivalent. Keys to successful implementation include training and support of engaged PCPs and a patient transition plan introduced early in the care trajectory.

Gynecological cancer patients' attitudes toward follow-up care after cancer treatment: Do preferences reflect patients' experience? A cross-sectional questionnaire study

INTRODUCTION

Due to an increasing number of cancer patients, new follow-up models are being debated, among them follow-up by general practitioners. Before changing surveillance, it is important to explore patients' views. The purpose of this study was to compare attitudes toward follow-up care among patients treated for gynecological cancer who had not yet started a follow-up regimen, with those who had been attending a hospital-based follow-up regimen for more than one year.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey among gynecological cancer patients recruited from three Norwegian hospitals in 2013-2015: Sørlandet Hospital Kristiansand, Sørlandet Hospital Arendal and St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim.

RESULTS

In all, 239 patients agreed to participate, 100 who had not yet started follow-up and 139 who had been attending more than one year of follow-up. Patients reported that they preferred to be followed up by a gynecologist rather than by their GP, whom they viewed as less competent for this purpose. However, patients who had not yet started follow-up were more willing to be followed up by a GP. Overall, patients rated detection of recurrence as the most important aspect of follow-up visits.

CONCLUSIONS

The gynecological cancer patients in our study preferred a hospital-based follow-up model. However, patients who had not yet started follow-up were more willing to be followed up by a GP. If follow-up is to be provided by GPs for selected patients, it is important that these patients are informed early of the value and limitations of follow-up visits, to ensure that they feel safe.

Follow-Up Care Provider Preferences of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors

PURPOSE

To explore the experiences and perspectives of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors regarding patient-provider relationships and their preferences surrounding type of healthcare provider for follow-up care.

METHODS

We recruited AYA cancer survivors who were diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 39 using the Utah Cancer Registry. Twenty-eight survivors participated in six focus groups held between March and May of 2015 in Salt Lake City and St. George, Utah. This analysis focuses on how survivors' preferences about type of healthcare provider may influence their transition into, and utilization of, follow-up care.

RESULTS

On average, survivors were 6.3 (standard deviation = 1.7) years from their cancer diagnosis. A majority of survivors expressed a desire not to transition to a new provider and preferred continuing to see their oncologist for follow-up care. For these survivors, this was due to already having a close relationship with their oncologist and because they trusted their provider's knowledge about cancer and how to handle late effects. However, survivors placed emphasis on being comfortable with their healthcare provider, regardless of provider type.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate the importance of formalizing provider transitions and roles after cancer therapy to improve patient comfort with new providers. By understanding the complexities of the transition from active cancer treatment to follow-up care for AYA survivors, these findings can inform programs undertaking post-care educational activities to ensure a seamless transition into survivorship care. Survivorship care plans can facilitate these transitions and improve patient confidence in follow-up care.