Cancer Survivorship Care in Advanced Primary Care Practices: A Qualitative Study of Challenges and Opportunities

Primary care physicians' knowledge and confidence in providing cancer survivorship care: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To systematically review existing literature on knowledge and confidence of primary care physicians (PCPs) in cancer survivorship care.

METHODS

PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to July 2022 for quantitative and qualitative studies. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and quality. Outcomes were characterized by domains of quality cancer survivorship care.

RESULTS

Thirty-three papers were included, representing 28 unique studies; 22 cross-sectional surveys, 8 qualitative, and 3 mixed-methods studies. Most studies were conducted in North America (n = 23) and Europe (n = 8). For surveys, sample sizes ranged between 29 and 1124 PCPs. Knowledge and confidence in management of physical (n = 19) and psychosocial effects (n = 12), and surveillance for recurrences (n = 14) were described most often. Generally, a greater proportion of PCPs reported confidence in managing psychosocial effects (24-47% of PCPs, n= 5 studies) than physical effects (10-37%, n = 8). PCPs generally thought they had the necessary knowledge to detect recurrences (62-78%, n = 5), but reported limited confidence to do so (6-40%, n = 5). There was a commonly perceived need for education on long-term and late physical effects (n = 6), and cancer surveillance guidelines (n = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs' knowledge and confidence in cancer survivorship care varies across care domains. Suboptimal outcomes were identified in managing physical effects and recurrences after cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

These results provide insights into the potential role of PCPs in cancer survivorship care, medical education, and development of targeted interventions.

fRAP 2.0: a community engagement method applied to cervical cancer disparities among Hispanic women

focused Rapid Assessment Process (fRAP) 2.0 is a community engagement approach combining geospatial mapping with rapid qualitative assessment in cyclical fashion within communities to capture multifactorial and multilevel features impacting primary care problems. fRAP 2.0 offers primary care researchers a methodology framework for exploring complex community features that impact primary healthcare delivery and outcomes. The fRAP 2.0 study design expands the fRAP from a sequential design to a cyclical process of geospatial mapping and rapid qualitative assessment in search of modifiable contextual factors. Research participants are stakeholders from various socioecological levels whose perspectives inform study outcomes that they may use to then become the agents of change for the very problems they helped explore. Here, we present a proof-of-concept study for fRAP 2.0 examining disparities in cervical cancer mortality rates among Hispanic women in Texas. The primary outcomes of interest are features at the community level, medical health system level and regional government policy levels that offer opportunities for collaborative interventions to improve cervical cancer outcomes. In this study, geospatial mapping of county and ZIP code-level variables impacting postdiagnosis cervical cancer care at community, medical and policy levels were created using publicly available data and then overlaid with maps created with Texas Cancer Registry data for cervical cancer cases in three of the largest population counties. Geographically disparate areas were then qualitatively explored using participant observation and ethnographic field work, alongside 39 key informant interviews. Roundtable discussion groups and stakeholder engagement existed at every phase of the study. Applying the fRAP 2.0 method, we created an action-oriented roadmap of next steps to improve cervical cancer care disparities in the three Texas counties with emphasis on the high disparity county. We identified local change targets for advocacy and the results helped convene a stakeholder group that continues to actively create on-the-ground change in the high-disparity county to improve cervical cancer outcomes for Hispanic women.

Testing and Validation of a Custom Retrained Large Language Model for the Supportive Care of HN Patients with External Knowledge Base

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop a retrained large language model (LLM) tailored to the needs of HN cancer patients treated with radiotherapy, with emphasis on symptom management and survivorship care.

METHODS

A comprehensive external database was curated for training ChatGPT-4, integrating expert-identified consensus guidelines on supportive care for HN patients and correspondences from physicians and nurses within our institution's electronic medical records for 90 HN patients. The performance of our model was evaluated using 20 patient post-treatment inquiries that were then assessed by three Board certified radiation oncologists (RadOncs). The rating of the model was assessed on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) based on accuracy, clarity of response, completeness s, and relevance.

RESULTS

The average scores for the 20 tested questions were 4.25 for accuracy, 4.35 for clarity, 4.22 for completeness, and 4.32 for relevance, on a 5-point scale. Overall, 91.67% (220 out of 240) of assessments received scores of 3 or higher, and 83.33% (200 out of 240) received scores of 4 or higher.

CONCLUSION

The custom-trained model demonstrates high accuracy in providing support to HN patients offering evidence-based information and guidance on their symptom management and survivorship care.

Primary care for cancer survivors: a review of national institutes of health-funded grants 2017-2022

PURPOSE

To describe the characteristics of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants on primary care cancer research in cancer survivorship funded over the past 5 years.

METHODS

Research project grants (RPG) funded during Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 to 2022 focused on cancer survivorship were identified using a text mining algorithm of words from the NIH Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization (RCDC) thesaurus with survivorship-relevant terms. Grants were then reviewed and double-coded to identify those that were carried out in a primary care setting, targeted primary care providers, or had primary care providers in the study team.

RESULTS

A total of 24 grants were identified; 23 were funded by the National Cancer Institute and one was funded by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. The majority were funded under the R01 mechanism (70.8%) and led by established investigators. Most were interventional design (91.7%), including both survivors and providers (79.2%), and focused care coordination or healthcare utilization (91.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Grants focused on primary care cancer survivorship are uncommon in the NIH portfolio.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SURVIVORS

For the over 18 million cancer survivors in the USA, being cared for in a primary care setting is common. Yet, NIH-funded research on primary care cancer survivorship is sparse.

Identifying priority areas to support primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care: A Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Existing approaches in cancer survivorship care delivery have proven to be insufficient to engage primary care. This study aimed to identify stakeholder-informed priorities to improve primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care.

METHODS

Experts in U.S. cancer survivorship care delivery were invited to participate in a 4-round online Delphi panel to identify and evaluate priorities for defining and fostering primary care's engagement in breast cancer survivorship. Panelists were asked to identify and then assess (ratings of 1-9) the importance and feasibility of priority items to support primary care engagement in survivorship. Panelists were asked to review the group results and reevaluate the importance and feasibility of each item, aiming to reach consensus.

RESULTS

Respondent panelists (n = 23, response rate 57.5%) identified 31 priority items to support survivorship care. Panelists consistently rated three items most important (scored 9) but with uncertain feasibility (scored 5-6). These items emphasized the need to foster connections and improve communication between primary care and oncology. Panelists reached consensus on four items evaluated as important and feasible: (1) educating patients on survivorship, (2) enabling screening reminders and monitoring alerts in the electronic medical record, (3) identifying patient resources for clinicians to recommend, and (4) distributing accessible reference guides of common breast cancer drugs.

CONCLUSION

Role clarity and communication between oncology and primary care were rated as most important; however, uncertainty about feasibility remains. These findings indicate that cross-disciplinary capacity building to address feasibility issues may be needed to make the most important priority items actionable in primary 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.

Extra/ordinary medicine: Toward an anthropology of primary care

Primary care is at the forefront of healthcare delivery. It is the site of disease prevention and health management and serves as the bridge between communities and the health care system As ethnographers of primary care, in this article we discuss what is gained by situating anthropological inquiry within primary care. We articulate how anthropologists can contribute to a better understanding of the issues that emerge in primary care. We provide a review of anthropological work in primary care and offer empirical data from two ethnographic case studies based in the United States, one focused on social risk screening in primary care and the other examining the diagnosis and care of people with dementia in primary care. Through these cases, we demonstrate how research of and within primary care can open important avenues for the study of the multidimensionality of primary care. This multidimensionality is apparent in the ways the medical field addresses the social and structural experiences of patients, scope of practice and disciplinary boundaries, and the intersection of ordinary and extraordinary medicine that emerge in the care of patients in primary care.

Patient-reported outcome measurement implementation in cancer survivors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are increasingly used for cancer patients receiving active treatment, but little is known about the implementation and usefulness of PROMs in cancer survivorship care. This systematic review evaluates how cancer survivors and healthcare providers (HCPs) perceive PROM implementation in survivorship care, and how PROM implementation impacts cancer survivors' health outcomes.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to February 2022 to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies of PROM implementation in cancer survivors.

RESULTS

Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 29 studies that reported on 26 unique PROMs. The studies were heterogeneous in study design, PROM instrument, patient demographics, and outcomes. Several studies found that cancer survivors and HCPs had favorable impressions of the utility of PROMs, and a few studies demonstrated that PROM implementation led to improvements in patient quality of life (QoL), with small to moderate effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

We found implementation of PROMs in cancer survivorship care improved health outcomes for select patient populations. Future research is needed to assess the real-world utility of PROM integration into clinical workflows and the impact of PROMs on measurable health outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cancer survivors accepted PROMs. When successfully implemented, PROMs can improve health outcomes after completion of active treatment. We identify multiple avenues to strengthen PROM implementation to support cancer survivors.

Myths and Presumptions About Cancer Survivorship

Identifying cancer survivorship myths and presumptions perpetuated in survivorship circles.

Survivorship care for patients curatively treated for Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a scoping review

PURPOSE

We undertook a scoping review of the literature to synthesize what is known about lymphoma survivorship and develop a comprehensive set of lymphoma-specific survivorship recommendations.

METHODS

We searched the peer-reviewed literature from January 1995 to April 2022, focused on topics relevant to survivorship care in patients ≥ 18 years of age, treated curatively for non-Hodgkin's and Hodgkin's lymphoma, and in remission for at least 2 years.

RESULTS

We retained 92 articles; themes included late effects of treatment (53.3%, 49/92), particularly fatigue and sleep disturbances, and fertility, as well as psychosocial considerations of survivors (27.2%; 25/92), screening for secondary malignancies (22.8%; 21/92), outcomes of interventions to improve survivorship care (10.9%; 10/92), and best practices and elements for survivorship plans (8.7%; 8/92). While there were published guidelines for screening for recurrence and secondary malignancies, despite the considerable number of articles on the psychosocial aspects of survivorship care, there remains limited guidance on screening frequency and management strategies for anxiety and depression, sleep disturbances, and treatment-related fatigue within the lymphoma population.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a comprehensive set of lymphoma-survivorship recommendations; however, work is needed to adapt them to local healthcare contexts.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SURVIVORS

While there is a focus in the literature on the long-term psychosocial impacts of cancer and its treatment on lymphoma survivors, there remains no concrete recommendations on effective screening and management of detriments to quality of life such as anxiety, depression, fatigue, and distress, and availability of local resources vary widely.

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

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

Optimizing cancer survivorship in primary care: patient experiences from the Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivors clinic

PURPOSE

The optimal delivery of survivorship care, particularly within primary care, remains poorly understood. We established the Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivors (PCCS) clinic in 2015 to address care challenges unique to cancer survivors. To better understand the care from the PCCS clinic, we interviewed patients about their perception of care delivery, survivorship care, and care coordination.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with adult survivors of any cancer type seen in the PCCS clinic. A priori and in vivo coding of verbatim transcripts was part of the thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Seventeen cancer survivors were interviewed (ages 37-78). Themes that emerged were (1) optimal care and (2) the PCCS experience. Subthemes respectively included the ideal role of the primary care provider (1), telehealth/COVID-19 challenges and opportunities (1), patient-derived value from the PCCS clinic (2), and improving the PCCS model (2). Overall, PCCS patients expected and experienced high-quality, comprehensive primary care by providers with cancer survivorship expertise. Patients reported telehealth benefits and challenges for survivorship care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

PCCS patients perceived receiving high-quality primary care and valued being seen in a primary care-based survivorship clinic. The PCCS clinic can serve as a model of primary care-based cancer survivorship.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Ideal primary care provider roles and care coordination are important factors for high-quality survivorship care and can be provided by a specialized cancer survivorship clinic in primary care.

Lessons from a Customer Discovery Study: a Technology-Based Cancer Support Program for Asian American Breast Cancer Survivors

PURPOSE

A culturally tailored technology-based cancer support program was recently developed and tested among Asian American breast cancer survivors. To explore future opportunities to sustain the program, the research team participated in the SPeeding Research-tested INTervention (SPRINT) program sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. The purpose of this discussion paper is to share the lessons that the research team gained from a customer discovery study through the SPRINT program.

METHODS

During the SPRINT program, a total of 73 stakeholders were recruited through a snowball sampling across the globe. Semi-structured interviews were conducted for customer discovery through WebEX, phone calls, and in-person visits (50 in-person interviews, 4 phone interviews, and 19 WebEx interviews). All the interviews were recorded using audio-taping or writing memos. Also, the research team wrote memos on the issues/concerns related to the project during the interview process. Then, the transcripts and memos were analyzed using a content analysis to provide evidence for the lessons.

RESULTS

The themes reflecting the lessons from the customer discovery study included (a) "who are the stakeholders"; (b) "depending on stakeholders"; (c) "what works or not"; (d) "personal versus family responsibilities"; and (e) "depending on countries' situations."

CONCLUSION

These lessons could provide directions for future development and implementation of technology-based cancer support programs for Asian American breast cancer survivors.

Oncologists' Perspectives on Cancer Survivorship: What Role Should Primary Care Play?

Background: Despite calls for an enhanced role for primary care for individuals with a history of cancer, primary medical care's role in adult survivorship care continues to be marginal.Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 8 medical oncologists with interest in cancer survivorship from 7 National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer centers to understand perspectives on the role of primary care in cancer survivorship.Results: Two salient overarching thematic patterns emerged. (1) Oncologist's perspectives diverge on if, how, and when primary care clinicians should be involved in survivorship, ranging from involvement of primary care throughout treatment to a standardized hand-off years post-therapy. (2) Oncologist's lack understanding about primary care's expertise and subsequent value in survivorship care.Conclusion: As oncology continues to be overwhelmed by rising numbers of aging cancer survivors with multi-morbidities, NCI-designated cancer centers should take a leadership role in integrating primary care engaged cancer survivorship.

Direct Observation Methods: a Practical Guide for Health Researchers

OBJECTIVE

To provide health research teams with a practical, methodologically rigorous guide on how to conduct direct observation.

METHODS

Synthesis of authors' observation-based teaching and research experiences in social sciences and health services research.

RESULTS

This article serves as a guide for making key decisions in studies involving direct observation. Study development begins with determining if observation methods are warranted or feasible. Deciding what and how to observe entails reviewing literature and defining what abstract, theoretically informed concepts look like in practice. Data collection tools help systematically record phenomena of interest. Interdisciplinary teams--that include relevant community members-- increase relevance, rigor and reliability, distribute work, and facilitate scheduling. Piloting systematizes data collection across the team and proactively addresses issues.

CONCLUSION

Observation can elucidate phenomena germane to healthcare research questions by adding unique insights. Careful selection and sampling are critical to rigor. Phenomena like taboo behaviors or rare events are difficult to capture. A thoughtful protocol can preempt Institutional Review Board concerns.

INNOVATION

This novel guide provides a practical adaptation of traditional approaches to observation to meet contemporary healthcare research teams' needs.

Black boxes and information pathways: An actor-network theory approach to breast cancer survivorship care

Many women diagnosed with breast cancer today can expect to live long after completing their treatment. This growing population of survivors encounters distinct post-treatment health and information needs. Existing survivorship care models take information as a given, black boxing it. I use Actor-Network Theory to examine how information actually works for women after they complete breast cancer treatment, and how it shapes their understanding of survivorship. I draw on in-depth interviews with breast cancer survivors (n = 82) and a wide range of providers (n = 84) in a medically underserved region of Southern California. Black boxes and information pathways convey experiential dimensions of cancer care; they are also metaphoric constructs. The black box metaphor refers to the cancer experience as a container; the pathways metaphor refers to a journey. Each of these metaphors expresses salient dimensions of the cancer experience and has implications for post-treatment survivorship. When healthcare information flows smoothly and invisibly, its pathways become black boxed. Black boxes can be helpful when they function effectively. But since black boxes conceal their inner workings, it is challenging to intervene when difficulties arise. I provide three examples of difficulties that complicate women's transition to post-treatment survivorship: (1) when survivors fail to recognize treatment-related late effects, (2) do not understand they have a terminal diagnosis, or (3) worry that their treatment accomplished nothing. Contextualized within survivorship scholarship, this study recommends opening black boxes to examine how information pathways could connect women differently to improve survivorship care.

Cancer survivorship care and general practice: A qualitative study of roles of general practice team members in Australia

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.

Engaging TEAM Medicine in Patient Care: Redefining Cancer Survivorship From Diagnosis

New approaches to cancer survivorship care must address the rising number of survivors who need complex care; the need to personalize care to improve health equity; workforce shortages and clinician knowledge deficits about the long-term and late effects of cancer; the need to engage and coordinate oncology, primary care, and a large multidisciplinary team of subspecialists and programs to meet survivors' needs; and the need to control costs and deliver better value. This review proposes eight core tenets of an evolved standard of care to meet these needs by starting at diagnosis and continuing throughout oncology and into follow-up to: (1) facilitate team medicine by connecting oncology, primary care, subspecialists and programs, researchers, and patients and caregivers; (2) educate patients and support them in self-management; (3) mitigate toxicities; (4) manage comorbidities; (5) promote healthy behaviors and wellness; (6) improve health equity; (7) provide clear personalized follow-up; and (8) provide ongoing opportunities for participation in research as the standard of care. Strategies to successfully implement this care are discussed from the perspectives of oncology, primary care, and health care administration.

American Cancer Society nutrition and physical activity guideline for cancer survivors

The overall 5-year relative survival rate for all cancers combined is now 68%, and there are over 16.9 million survivors in the United States. Evidence from laboratory and observational studies suggests that factors such as diet, physical activity, and obesity may affect risk for recurrence and overall survival after a cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this American Cancer Society guideline is to provide evidence-based, cancer-specific recommendations for anthropometric parameters, physical activity, diet, and alcohol intake for reducing recurrence and cancer-specific and overall mortality. The audiences for this guideline are health care providers caring for cancer survivors as well as cancer survivors and their families. The guideline is intended to serve as a resource for informing American Cancer Society programs, health policy, and the media. Sources of evidence that form the basis of this guideline are systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, pooled analyses of cohort studies, and large randomized clinical trials published since 2012. Recommendations for nutrition and physical activity during cancer treatment, informed by current practice, large cancer care organizations, and reviews of other expert bodies, are also presented. To provide additional context for the guidelines, the authors also include information on the relationship between health-related behaviors and comorbidities, long-term sequelae and patient-reported outcomes, and health disparities, with attention to enabling survivors' ability to adhere to recommendations. Approaches to meet survivors' needs are addressed as well as clinical care coordination and resources for nutrition and physical activity counseling after a cancer diagnosis.

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

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

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

CONTEXT

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

MEASURES

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

ANALYSES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Informing the delivery of cancer survivorship care in rural primary care practice

Purpose

The cancer survivor population is projected to increase to 22.2 million by 2030, requiring improved collaboration between oncology and primary care practices (PCP). PCPs may feel ill-equipped to provide cancer survivorship care to patients without input from cancer specialists. Compared with nonrural cancer survivors, rural cancer survivors report experiencing worse treatment-related symptoms. The goal of this study was to gain a better understanding of the perspectives of PCP teams towards survivorship care and to develop and test an interdisciplinary training program to improve cancer survivorship care in rural practice.

Methods

This study was conducted in two phases. First, focus groups were conducted with rural PCP teams to gather information regarding beliefs, practices, and barriers related to cancer survivorship care delivery. A thematic analysis was completed using an iterative process of reviewing transcripts. Results from phase 1 were used to inform the development of a pilot intervention tested within seven rural PCPs (phase 2). Pre- and post-intervention knowledge changes were compared, and post-session interviews assessed planned or sustained practice changes.

Results

Seven PCPs participated in focus groups (phase 1). Cross-cutting themes identified included (1) organizational barriers affecting the delivery of cancer survivorship care, (2) challenges of role delineation with specialists and patients, (3) difficulty accessing survivorship care and resources, and (4) providers’ lack of knowledge of cancer survivorship care. For phase 2, seven practices participated in four case-based educational sessions. Within and between practice changes were identified.

Conclusion

This project explored cancer survivorship perspectives among PCP teams. Lack of familiarity with evidence-based guidelines and the inability to identify cancer survivors was apparent during discussions and led to the implementation of the phase 2 intervention, iSurvive. As a result, PCPs either changed or planned changes to improve the identification and evidence-based care of cancer survivors.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Address barriers to access cancer survivorship care in rural primary care practices.

Approaches to opioid prescribing in cancer survivors: Lessons learned from the general literature

LAY SUMMARY

Guidance on how to approach opioid decisions for people beyond active cancer treatment is lacking. This editorial discusses strategies from the general literature that can be thoughtfully tailored to cancer survivors to provide patient-centered pain and opioid care.

Results of Engineering, Primary Care, Oncology Collaborative Regarding a Survey of Primary Care on a Re-Engineered Survivorship Care Plan

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) may facilitate cancer survivorship care shared between oncologists and primary care, particularly for patients more likely to receive care across healthcare systems such as rural patients. However, limited research has addressed primary care clinicians' information or workflow needs with regard to SCPs. This study's objective was to assess primary care clinicians' perceived usefulness with a re-engineered SCP previously developed by applying engineering approaches and informed by primary care preferences. An emailed survey of primary care clinicians assessed perceived usefulness with the re-engineered SCP. Clinicians were recruited across the USA from primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) with high concentrations of rural practices. Over 90% of respondents (n = 111) agreed that (1) the re-engineered SCP was useful (n = 95) and (2) they would want to receive a similar SCP (n = 93). The majority demonstrated high agreement regarding the SCP's relevance, understandability, content, and ability to help provide better survivorship care. Perceived usefulness was consistent between rural and non-rural clinicians. Suggested improvements involved decreased length, addition of a bulleted list, and electronic health record integration. Results indicate that the majority of primary care clinicians perceive the re-engineered SCP as useful. However, primary care clinicians indicated continued barriers despite end-user specific alterations. Future research should investigate additional strategies to support primary care survivorship-related workload, provide essential SCP content, and improve survivorship care delivery.

Provider Communication: The Key to Care Coordination Between Tribal Primary Care and Community Oncology Providers

PURPOSE

To explore tribal primary care providers' and community oncology providers' experiences of caring for individuals with cancer to inform intervention development and improve cancer care coordination in this high-need population.

PARTICIPANTS & SETTING

33 tribal primary care providers and 22 nontribal, community-based oncology providers.

METHODOLOGIC APPROACH

A qualitative, descriptive design was used, and 55 semistructured individual interviews were completed. Data were analyzed using conventional inductive content analysis to identify major themes.

FINDINGS

Effective care coordination for individuals with cancer was characterized by timely communication. Providers in both settings identified unhindered communication between providers as a key element of care coordination. Identification of points of contact in each setting enhanced information exchange. As patient needs related to cancer care intensified, care coordination increased in complexity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Evaluating strategies to enhance communication between tribal primary care providers and community oncology providers is an important next step in enhancing the coordination of care for tribal individuals with cancer.

Cancer Survivors, Oncology, and Primary Care Perspectives on Survivorship Care: An Integrative Review

Purpose:

Evidence-based models of cancer survivorship care are lacking. Such models should take into account the perspectives of all stakeholders. The purpose of this integrative review is to examine the current state of the literature on cancer survivorship care from the cancer survivor, the oncology care team, and the primary care team perspectives.

Methods:

Using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we conducted a literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases to identify relevant articles on the stakeholders’ perspectives on cancer survivorship care published between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed and abstracted eligible articles to synthesize findings.

Results:

A total of 21 studies were included in the review. Barriers to the receipt and provision of cancer survivorship care quality included challenges with communication, cancer care delivery, and knowledge.

Conclusion:

Persistent stakeholder-identified barriers continue to hinder the provision of quality cancer survivorship care. Improved communication, delivery of care, knowledge/information, and resources are needed to improve the quality of survivorship care. Novel models of cancer survivorship care that address the needs of survivors, oncology teams, and PCPs are needed.

Cancer Survivors, Oncology, and Primary Care Perspectives on Survivorship Care: An Integrative Review

PURPOSE

Evidence-based models of cancer survivorship care are lacking. Such models should take into account the perspectives of all stakeholders. The purpose of this integrative review is to examine the current state of the literature on cancer survivorship care from the cancer survivor, the oncology care team, and the primary care team perspectives.

METHODS

Using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we conducted a literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases to identify relevant articles on the stakeholders' perspectives on cancer survivorship care published between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed and abstracted eligible articles to synthesize findings.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were included in the review. Barriers to the receipt and provision of cancer survivorship care quality included challenges with communication, cancer care delivery, and knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Persistent stakeholder-identified barriers continue to hinder the provision of quality cancer survivorship care. Improved communication, delivery of care, knowledge/information, and resources are needed to improve the quality of survivorship care. Novel models of cancer survivorship care that address the needs of survivors, oncology teams, and PCPs are needed.

Low-value care and excess out-of-pocket expenditure among older adults with incident cancer - A machine learning approach

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of low-value care with excess out-of-pocket expenditure among older adults diagnosed with incident breast, prostate, colorectal cancers, and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

METHODS

We used a retrospective cohort study design with 12-month baseline and follow-up periods. We identified a cohort of older adults (age ≥ 66 years) diagnosed with breast, prostate, colorectal cancers, or Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma between January 2014 and December 2014. We assessed low-value care and patient out-of-pocket expenditure in the follow-up period. We identified relevant low-value services using ICD9/ICD10 and CPT/HCPCS codes from the linked health claims and patient out-of-pocket expenditure from Medicare claim files and expressed expenditure in 2016 USD.

RESULTS

About 29 % of older adults received at least one low-value care procedure during the follow-up period. Low-value care differed by gender, and rates were higher in women with colorectal cancer (32.7 %) vs. (28.8 %) and NHL (40 %) vs. (39 %) compared to men. Individuals who received one or more low-value care procedures had significantly higher mean out-of-pocket expenditure ($8,726 ± $7,214) vs. ($6,802 ± $6,102). XGBOOST, a machine learning algorithm revealed that low-value care was among the five leading predictors of OOP expenditure.

CONCLUSION

One in four older adults with incident cancer received low-value care in 12-months after a cancer diagnosis. Across all cancer populations, individuals who received low-value care had significantly higher out-of-pocket expenditure. Excess out-of-pocket expenditure was driven by low-value care, fragmentation of care, and an increasing number of pre-existing chronic conditions.

POLICY STATEMENT

This study focuses on health policy issues, specifically value-based care and its findings have important clinical and policy implications for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) which has issued a roadmap for states to accelerate the adoption of value-based care, with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) setting a goal of converting 50 % of traditional Medicare payment systems to alternative payment models tied to value-based care by 2022.

Low-touch, team-based care for co-morbidity management in cancer patients: the ONE TEAM randomized controlled trial

Background

As treatments for cancer have improved, more people are surviving cancer. However, compared to people without a history of cancer, cancer survivors are more likely to die of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Increased risk for CVD-related mortality among cancer survivors is partially due to lack of medication adherence and problems that exist in care coordination between cancer specialists, primary care physicians, and cardiologists.

Methods/Design

The Onco-primary care networking to support TEAM-based care (ONE TEAM) study is an 18-month cluster-randomized controlled trial with clustering at the primary care clinic level. ONE TEAM compares the provision of the iGuide intervention to patients and primary care providers versus an education-only control. For phase 1, at the patient level, the intervention includes video vignettes and a live webinar; provider-level interventions include electronic health records-based communication and case-based webinars. Participants will be enrolled from across North Carolina one of their first visits with a cancer specialist (e.g., surgeon, radiation or medical oncologist). We use a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design.

Outcomes (measured at the patient level) will include Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measures of management of three CVD comorbidities using laboratory testing (glycated hemoglobin [A1c], lipid profile) and blood pressure measurements; (2) medication adherence assessed pharmacy refill data using Proportion of Days Covered (PDC); and (3) patient-provider communication (Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care, PCC-Ca-36).

Primary care clinics in the intervention arm will be considered non-responders if 90% or more of their participating patients do not meet the modified HEDIS quality metrics at the 6-month measurement, assessed once the first enrollee from each practice reaches the 12-month mark. Non-responders will be re-randomized to either continue to receive the iGuide 1 intervention, or to receive the iGuide 2 intervention, which includes tailored videos for participants and specialist consults with primary care providers.

Discussion

As the population of cancer survivors grows, ONE TEAM will contribute to closing the CVD outcomes gap among cancer survivors by optimizing and integrating cancer care and primary care teams. ONE TEAM is designed so that it will be possible for others to emulate and implement at scale.

Trial registration

This study (NCT04258813) was registered in clinicaltrals.gov on February 6, 2020.

The Interplay between Housing Environmental Attributes and Design Exposures and Psychoneuroimmunology Profile-An Exploratory Review and Analysis Paper in the Cancer Survivors' Mental Health Morbidity Context

Adult cancer survivors have an increased prevalence of mental health comorbidities and other adverse late-effects interdependent with mental illness outcomes compared with the general population. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) heralds an era of renewed call for actions to identify sustainable modalities to facilitate the constructs of cancer survivorship care and health care delivery through physiological supportive domestic spaces. Building on the concept of therapeutic architecture, psychoneuroimmunology (PNI) indicators-with the central role in low-grade systemic inflammation-are associated with major psychiatric disorders and late effects of post-cancer treatment. Immune disturbances might mediate the effects of environmental determinants on behaviour and mental disorders. Whilst attention is paid to the non-objective measurements for examining the home environmental domains and mental health outcomes, little is gathered about the multidimensional effects on physiological responses. This exploratory review presents a first analysis of how addressing the PNI outcomes serves as a catalyst for therapeutic housing research. We argue the crucial component of housing in supporting the sustainable primary care and public health-based cancer survivorship care model, particularly in the psychopathology context. Ultimately, we illustrate a series of interventions aiming at how housing environmental attributes can trigger PNI profile changes and discuss the potential implications in the non-pharmacological treatment of cancer survivors and patients with mental morbidities.

Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Expert Testicular Cancer Tumor Board Across a Large Integrated Healthcare Delivery System Via Early Case Ascertainment

PURPOSE

In 2016, Kaiser Permanente Northern California began regionalizing testicular cancer care using population-based tumor board review. This mixed methods evaluation describes implementation outcomes and learnings.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, administered surveys to local oncologists and urologists, and used clinical data to evaluate changes in care delivery during 2015-2018.

RESULTS

An average of 135 patients with testicular cancer were diagnosed each year. Interviews with 16 key stakeholders provided several insights. Implementation resulted in high levels of satisfaction, was dependent on leadership and staff at various levels, and required technology and consulting solutions aligned to user agreements and clinical workflows. Of 123 local oncologists and urologists who completed surveys, 97% understood why care was regionalized and 89% agreed that tumor board review improved treatment decisions. Among 177 patients with stage I seminoma, the percentage appropriately observed rather than treated with adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy increased from 48% (95% CI, 35 to 62) in 2015 to 87% (75 to 99) in 2018. Review altered care based on pathology and radiology re-review in 14.5 % of cases.

CONCLUSION

Regionalization was feasible and effective.

Thematic Analysis of Challenges of Care Coordination for Underinsured and Uninsured Cancer Survivors With Chronic Conditions

IMPORTANCE

Although a majority of underinsured and uninsured patients with cancer have multiple comorbidities, many lack consistent connections with a primary care team to manage chronic conditions during and after cancer treatment. This presents a major challenge to delivering high-quality comprehensive and coordinated care.

OBJECTIVE

To describe challenges and opportunities for coordinating care in an integrated safety-net system for patients with both cancer and other chronic conditions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multimodal qualitative study was conducted from May 2016 to July 2019 at a county-funded, vertically integrated safety-net health system including ambulatory oncology, urgent care, primary care, and specialty care. Participants were 93 health system stakeholders (clinicians, leaders, clinical, and administrative staff) strategically and snowball sampled for semistructured interviews and observation during meetings and daily processes of care. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively using a grounded theory approach, followed by systematic thematic analysis to organize data, review, and interpret comprehensive findings. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Multilevel factors associated with experiences of coordinating care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions among oncology and primary care stakeholders.

RESULTS

Among interviews and observation of 93 health system stakeholders, system-level factors identified as being associated with care coordination included challenges to accessing primary care, lack of communication between oncology and primary care clinicians, and leadership awareness of care coordination challenges. Clinician-level factors included unclear role delineation and lack of clinician knowledge and preparedness to manage the effects of cancer and chronic conditions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Primary care may play a critical role in delivering coordinated care for patients with cancer and chronic diseases. This study's findings suggest a need for care delivery strategies that bridge oncology and primary care by enhancing communication, better delineating roles and responsibilities across care teams, and improving clinician knowledge and preparedness to care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. Expanding timely access to primary care is also key, albeit challenging in resource-limited safety-net settings.

Assessing Cancer History Accuracy in Primary Care Electronic Health Records Through Cancer Registry Linkage

BACKGROUND

Many cancer survivors receive primary care in community health centers (CHCs). Cancer history is an important factor to consider in the provision of primary care, yet little is known about the completeness or accuracy of cancer history data contained in CHC electronic health records (EHRs).

METHODS

We probabilistically linked EHR data from more than1.5 million adult CHC patients to state cancer registries in California, Oregon, and Washington and estimated measures of agreement (eg, kappa, sensitivity, specificity). We compared demographic and clinical characteristics of cancer patients as estimated by each data source, evaluating distributional differences with absolute standardized mean differences.

RESULTS

A total 74 707 cancer patients were identified between the 2 sources (EHR only, n = 22 730; registry only, n = 23 616; both, n = 28 361). Nearly one-half of cancer patients identified in registries were missing cancer documentation in the EHR. Overall agreement of cancer ascertainment in the EHR vs cancer registries (gold standard) was moderate (kappa = 0.535). Cancer site-specific agreement ranged from substantial (eg, prostate and female breast; kappa > 0.60) to fair (melanoma and cervix; kappa < 0.40). Comparing population characteristics of cancer patients as ascertained from each data source, groups were similar for sex, age, and federal poverty level, but EHR-recorded cases showed greater medical complexity than those ascertained from cancer registries.

CONCLUSIONS

Agreement between EHR and cancer registry data was moderate and varied by cancer site. These findings suggest the need for strategies to improve capture of cancer history information in CHC EHRs to ensure adequate delivery of care and optimal health outcomes for cancer survivors.

Use of health services among long-term breast cancer survivors in Spain: longitudinal study based on real-world data

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate health service utilization in Spain among long-term breast cancer survivors and to compare it with that among women with no history of breast cancer.

METHODS

Study based on the SURBCAN cohort includes a sample of long-term breast cancer survivors and a sample of women without breast cancer from 5 Spanish regions. Healthcare utilization was assessed through primary care, hospital visits, and tests during the follow-up period (2012 to 2016) by using electronic health records. Annual contact rates to healthcare services were calculated, and crude and multivariate count models were fitted to estimate the adjusted relative risk of healthcare services use.

RESULTS

Data were obtained from 19,328 women, including 6512 long-term breast cancer survivors. Healthcare use was higher among breast cancer survivors (20.9 vs 16.6; p < 0.0001) and decreased from >10 years of survival. Breast cancer survivors who underwent a mastectomy were more likely to have a primary care visit (RR = 3.10 95% CI 3.08-3.11). Five to ten years survivors were more likely to have hospital inpatient visits and imaging test compared to women without breast cancer (RRa = 1.35 95% CI 1.30-1.39 and RRa = 1.27 95% CI 1.25-1.29 respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study shows higher use of health services in long-term breast cancer survivors than in women without breast cancer regardless of survival time.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

These results help to estimate the health resources needed for the growing group of breast cancer survivors and to identify risk factors that drive higher use of health services.

Developing a survivorship care plan (SCP) delivery process for patients and primary care providers serving poor, rural, and minority patients with cancer

Background

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) summarize patients’ treatment and act as an education and communication tool between oncologists and primary care providers (PCPs). But creation and delivery of SCPs are challenging, labor intensive, and costly. The University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center (UNM CCC) treats a poor, rural, and minority patient population, and our purpose was to implement and evaluate a process to create and deliver SCPs to patients and PCPs.

Methods

Providers placed an electronic SCP order, basic information was imported, and staff compiled treatment details. Flagged SCPs were then ready for delivery, providers approved of and delivered the SCP at the next encounter, and the SCP was sent to the PCP.

Results

By April 2020, 283 SCPs were ordered, 241 (85.2%) were created by the designated staff, and 97 (34.2%) were given to patients after definitive therapy for breast cancer (59.1%), gynecological cancers (10.8%), prostate cancer (7.4%), colorectal cancer (5.1%), and lymphomas (4.8%). Of 97 SCPs eligible to be sent to PCPs, 75 (77.3%) were mailed or sent via EMR. Of the 41 (48.9%) SCPs sent via mail or fax, only 8 (8.3%) were received and 5 (5.2%) integrated.

Conclusions

This study shows that SCPs can be delivered to patients in a poor, rural, and minority patient population but that PCP receipt and integration of SCPs are poor. Future efforts need to ensure that an oncologist to PCP education and communication tool is able reach and be integrated by PCPs.

Primary Care Providers' Perceptions About Participating in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions

BACKGROUND

Primary care provider's (PCP) role in cancer care is expanding and may include supporting patients in their treatment decisions. However, the degree to which PCPs engage in this role for low-risk prostate cancer is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Characterize PCP perceptions regarding their role in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, national survey.

MAIN MEASURES

For men with low-risk prostate cancer, PCP reports of (1) confidence in treatment decision-making (high vs. low); (2) intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making (more vs. less).

KEY RESULTS

A total of 347 from 741 eligible PCPs responded (adjusted response rate 56%). Half of respondent PCPs (50.3%) reported high confidence about engaging in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. The odds of PCPs reporting high confidence were greater among those in solo practice (vs working with > 1 PCP) (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.14-4.17) and with higher volume of prostate cancer patients (> 15 vs. 6-10 in past year) (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.02-4.61). PCP report of their intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making varied: discussing worry (62.4%), reviewing benefits (48.5%) and risks (41.8%), and reviewing all treatment options (34.2%). PCPs who reported high confidence had increased odds of more participation in all aspects of active surveillance decision-making: reviewing all treatment options (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.82-5.32), discussing worry (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.28-3.51), and reviewing benefits (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.89-5.16) and risks (OR 3.20; 95% CI 1.91-5.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of PCPs were confident about engaging with patients in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making, though their intended participation varied widely across four key aspects of active surveillance care. With active surveillance being considered for other low-risk cancers (such as breast and thyroid), understanding factors influencing PCP involvement will be instrumental to supporting team-based cancer care.

Comorbidity Management in Black Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer: the Role of Primary Care in Shared Care

BACKGROUND

Black women are more likely to have comorbidity at breast cancer diagnosis compared with White women, which may account for half of the Black-White survivor disparity. Comprehensive disease management requires a coordinated team of healthcare professionals including primary care practitioners, but few studies have examined shared care in the management of comorbidities during cancer care, especially among racial/ethnic minorities.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether the type of medical team composition is associated with optimal clinical care management of comorbidities.

DESIGN

We used the Women's Circle of Health Follow-up Study, a population-based cohort of Black women diagnosed with breast cancer. The likelihood of receiving optimal comorbidity management after breast cancer diagnosis was compared by type of medical team composition (shared care versus cancer specialists only) using binomial regression.

PARTICIPANTS

Black women with a co-diagnosis of diabetes and/or hypertension at breast cancer diagnosis between 2012 and 2016 (N = 274).

MAIN MEASURES

Outcome-optimal clinical care management of diabetes (i.e., A1C test, LDL-C test, and medical attention for nephropathy) and hypertension (i.e., lipid screening and prescription for hypertension medication). Main predictor-shared care, whether the patient received care from both a cancer specialist and a primary care provider and/or a medical specialist within the 12 months following a breast cancer diagnosis.

KEY RESULTS

Primary care providers were the main providers involved in managing comorbidities and 90% of patients received shared care during breast cancer care. Only 54% had optimal comorbidity management. Patients with shared care were five times (aRR: 4.62; 95% CI: 1.66, 12.84) more likely to have optimal comorbidity management compared with patients who only saw cancer specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

Suboptimal management of comorbidities during breast cancer care exists for Black women. However, our findings suggest that shared care is more beneficial at achieving optimal clinical care management for diabetes and hypertension than cancer specialists alone.

Care for Breast Cancer Survivors

The number of cancer survivors is increasing globally. More than 15.5 million Americans in 2016 and 1.3 million Koreans in 2013 were living with cancer history. This growing population is expected to increase due to marked development of cancer treatment and early detection. Especially, breast cancer is the second most common cancer in Korean women with relatively favorable 5-year survival rate. Cancer survivors generally face various physical, psychological, and social problems including late-effect or long-term effect after cancer treatment and high risk for second primary cancer and comorbid chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and bone health. Breast cancer survivors also encounter wide range of health problems. To satisfy their complex needs, comprehensive supports are required. We categorized the strategy of comprehensive care for breast cancer survivors into (1) Surveillance for primary cancer, (2) Screening of second primary cancer, (3) Management of comorbid health condition, (4) Promoting healthy lifestyle behaviors, and (5) Preventive care. In the future, studies for providing best comprehensive care for breast cancer survivors are needed according to the individuals' demand.

Efficacy of Endometrial Cancer Follow-up Protocols: Time to Change?

OBJECTIVE

 The aim of the present study was to analyze relapse rates and patterns in patients with endometrial cancer with the aim of evaluating the effectiveness of current follow-up procedures in terms of patient survival, as well as the convenience of modifying the surveillance strategy.

METHODS

 Retrospective descriptive study including all patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer relapse at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics of the Complejo Hospitalario Insular-Materno Infantil de Canarias, between 2005 and 2014.

RESULTS

 Recurrence was observed in 81 patients (10.04% of the sample); 66.7% of them suffered relapse within 2 years and 80.2% within 3 years after the termination of the primary treatment; 41.9% showed distant metastases while the rest corresponded to local-regional (40.7%) or ganglionar (17.4%) relapse; 42% of these were symptomatic; 14 patients showed more than 1 site of relapse. Relapse was detected mainly through symptoms and physical examination findings (54.3%), followed by elevated serum marker levels (29.6%), computed tomography (CT) images (9.9%) and abnormal vaginal cytology findings (6.2%). No differences in global survival were found between patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic relapse.

CONCLUSION

 Taking into account that the recurrence rate of endometrial cancer is low, that relapse occurs mainly within the first 3 years post-treatment and that symptom evaluation and physical examination are the most effective follow-up methods, we postulate that a modification of the current model of hospital follow-up should be considered.

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

Recent cancer care delivery models and clinical practice guidelines have expanded the role of primary care providers (PCPs) in routine follow-up of cancer survivors. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of PCPs affiliated with a large healthcare system to (1) examine practices, attitudes, and beliefs regarding preparedness to provide survivorship care and (2) explore predictors of confidence managing cancer survivors. We distributed a self-administered online survey to 1069 clinical affiliates providing primary care services within the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system. Associations between PCPs' professional characteristics and attitudes and preparedness were evaluated. Multiple logistic regression explored predictors of confidence monitoring common cancer treatment-related symptoms. One hundred twenty-seven eligible PCPs responded. The sample was split between academic and community practice (48.0% vs. 52.0%, respectively), predominantly comprised of physicians (81.8%), and 64.6% had > 15 years direct patient care experience. The majority agreed that PCPs play a valuable role in surveillance and adverse event monitoring in survivors, though less than 25% felt their professional training prepared them to perform each of these domains. Physicians were significantly more likely than advanced practice providers to be among the 65% of PCPs who were confident monitoring ≥ 1 symptom in each of the 5 evaluated symptom clusters (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.2-10.8). PCPs appear willing to assume an enhanced role in cancer survivorship care but feel unprepared to do so. Enhanced training and dissemination of clinical practice guidelines are needed to facilitate effective implementation of PCP-delivered survivorship care.

Assessing suitability for long-term colorectal cancer shared care: a scenario-based qualitative study

Background

Shared care is the preferred model for long-term survivorship care by cancer survivors, general practitioners and specialists. However, survivorship care remains specialist-led. A risk-stratified approach has been proposed to select suitable patients for long-term shared care after survivors have completed adjuvant cancer treatment. This study aims to use patient scenarios to explore views on patient suitability for long-term colorectal cancer shared care across the risk spectrum from survivors, general practitioners and specialists.

Methods

Participants completed a brief questionnaire assessing demographics and clinical issues before a semi-structured in-depth interview. The interviews focused on the participant’s view on suitability for long term cancer shared care, challenges and facilitators in delivering it and resources that would be helpful. We conducted thematic analysis using an inductive approach to discover new concepts and themes.

Results

Interviews were conducted with 10 cancer survivors, 6 general practitioners and 9 cancer specialists. The main themes that emerged were patient-centredness, team resilience underlined by mutual trust and stronger system supports by way of cancer-specific training, survivorship care protocols, shared information systems, care coordination and navigational supports.

Conclusions

Decisions on the appropriateness of this model for patients need to be made collaboratively with cancer survivors, considering their trust and relationship with their general practitioners and the support they need. Further research on improving mutual trust and operationalising support systems would assist in the integration of shared survivorship care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-020-01311-w.

Cancer survivorship needs in Brazil: Patient and family perspective

Introduction

Cancer Survivorship is a growing public health challenge. Effective responses from health care and social services depend on appropriate identification of survivors and their families´ specific needs. There are few studies on survivorship in low and middle-income countries, therefore, more evidence-based studies are necessary to develop a comprehensive approach to cancer survivorship.

Objectives

Identify the needs of cancer survivors and their relatives, specifically those of individuals with breast, cervical or prostate cancer, and with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).

Methods

A qualitative, exploratory study conducted in two referral institutions in Brazil, located in Rio de Janeiro (Southeast region) and Fortaleza (Northeast region). The study included 47 patients of public and private health services and 12 family members. We used script-based semi-structured interviews. The discursive material obtained was categorized and analyzed using the Thematic Analysis approach.

Results

The analysis identified three central themes: 1) consequences of cancer treatment; 2) Changes in daily life associated with cancer survivorship; and 3) Unmet structural needs in cancer survivorship.

Conclusion

Social and cancer control policies in Brazil should provide resources, specific care standards and clinical, psychological and social support. Cancer survivors should also receive rehabilitation and work reintegration guidelines. This matter requires broader access to qualified cancer information, development of an integrated patient-centered care and care model, and more research resources for the country's post-treatment cancer period.

The science of hope

Hope is a contextual term that has different connotations depending on the setting. We analyse the concept of hope with respect to its applicability for oncology. We review studies that present hope as a direct or secondary mediator of outcome. We posit that an individual's level of hope is often determined by innate personality characteristics and environmental factors, but can also be physiologically influenced by immune modulators, neurotransmitters, affective states, and even the underlying disease process of cancer. We argue that hope can be a therapeutic target and review evidence showing the effects of hope-enhancing therapies. Given the potential for hope to alter oncological outcomes in patients with cancer and the opportunity for improvement in quality of life, we suggest further research directions in this area.

Living with cancer and multimorbidity: the role of primary care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As more people live longer with cancer, the number of patients with cancer and multiple other chronic conditions (multimorbidity) has increased. The presence of multimorbidity impacts on all stages of cancer care, from prevention and early detection through to end of life care, but research into cancer and multimorbidity is in its infancy. This review explores the impact of multimorbidity on adults living with (and beyond) cancer, with particular attention paid to the role of primary care in supporting patients in this situation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patterns of multimorbidity vary depending on cancer type and stage, as well as population characteristics and available data (e.g. number of conditions assessed). Cancer survivors are at increased risk of developing other chronic conditions, due to a combination of shared risk factors (e.g. smoking and obesity), effects of cancer treatments and psychosocial effects.

SUMMARY

Primary care has a central role to play in supporting multimorbid adults living with cancer, providing holistic care of physical and mental well being, while taking treatment burden and social circumstances into account. New models of person-centred and personalized cancer care include holistic needs assessments, care planning, treatment summaries and cancer care reviews, and depend on improved communication between oncologists and primary care colleagues.

Shared Care During Breast and Colorectal Cancer Treatment: Is It Associated With Patient-Reported Care Quality?

There is growing evidence that shared care, where the oncologist, primary care physician, and/or other specialty physicians jointly participate in care, can improve the quality of patients' cancer care. This cross-sectional study of breast and colorectal cancer patients (N = 534) recruited from the New Jersey State Cancer Registry examined patient and health system factors associated with receipt of shared care during cancer treatment into the early survivorship phase. We also assessed whether shared care was associated with quality indicators of cancer care: receipt of comprehensive care, follow-up care instructions, and written treatment summaries. Less than two-thirds of participants reported shared care during their cancer treatment. The odds of reporting shared care were 2.5 (95% CI: 1.46-4.17) times higher for colorectal than breast cancer patients and 52% (95% CI: 0.24-0.95) lower for uninsured compared with privately insured, after adjusting for other sociodemographic, clinical/tumor, and health system factors. No significant relationships were observed between shared care and quality indicators of cancer care. Given a substantial proportion of patients did not receive shared care, there may be missed opportunities for integrating primary care and nononcology specialists in cancer care, who can play critical roles in care coordination and managing comorbidities during cancer treatment.

Leading Innovative Practice: Leadership Attributes in LEAP Practices

Policy Points An onslaught of policies from the federal government, states, the insurance industry, and professional organizations continually requires primary care practices to make substantial changes; however, ineffective leadership at the practice level can impede the dissemination and scale-up of these policies. The inability of primary care practice leadership to respond to ongoing policy demands has resulted in moral distress and clinician burnout. Investments are needed to develop interventions and educational opportunities that target a broad array of leadership attributes.

CONTEXT

Over the past several decades, health care in the United States has undergone substantial and rapid change. At the heart of this change is an assumption that a more robust primary care infrastructure helps achieve the quadruple aim of improved care, better patient experience, reduced cost, and improved work life of health care providers. Practice-level leadership is essential to succeed in this rapidly changing environment. Complex adaptive systems theory offers a lens for understanding important leadership attributes.

METHODS

A review of the literature on leadership from a complex adaptive system perspective identified nine leadership attributes hypothesized to support practice change: motivating others to engage in change, managing abuse of power and social influence, assuring psychological safety, enhancing communication and information sharing, generating a learning organization, instilling a collective mind, cultivating teamwork, fostering emergent leaders, and encouraging boundary spanning. Through a secondary qualitative analysis, we applied these attributes to nine practices ranking high on both a practice learning and leadership scale from the Learning from Effective Ambulatory Practice (LEAP) project to see if and how these attributes manifest in high-performing innovative practices.

FINDINGS

We found all nine attributes identified from the literature were evident and seemed important during a time of change and innovation. We identified two additional attributes-anticipating the future and developing formal processes-that we found to be important. Complexity science suggests a hypothesized developmental model in which some attributes are foundational and necessary for the emergence of others.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful primary care practices exhibit a diversity of strong local leadership attributes. To meet the realities of a rapidly changing health care environment, training of current and future primary care leaders needs to be more comprehensive and move beyond motivating others and developing effective teams.

Cancer Survivorship Care Roles for Primary Care Physicians

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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