Who provides psychosocial follow-up care for post-treatment cancer survivors? A survey of medical oncologists and primary care physicians

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.

Integrative Oncology Care of Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression in Adults With Cancer: SIO-ASCO Guideline Summary and Q&A

This SIO-ASCO guideline Q&A provides guidance on integrative oncology care of symptoms of anxiety and depression in adult patients with cancer

Quantifying the Impact of Family Doctors on the Care Experiences of Patients with Cancer: Exploring Evidence from the 2021 Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey in Alberta, Canada

Oncology programs across Canada are reaching capacity as more Canadians are diagnosed with and treated for cancer each year. There is an increasing need to share care with family doctors, however it is unclear how this type of care impacts patient experiences, particularly while receiving active treatment. Retrospective data from the 2021 Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS) in Alberta, Canada was used in this study. A unique question on the Alberta survey asks patients about their family doctor's involvement during their cancer care. Patient satisfaction across the six domains of person-centred care on the AOPSS was analyzed based on how involved a patient's family doctor was. Compared to patients who indicated their family doctor was "Not involved", patients with "Very involved" family doctors had significantly higher satisfaction scores in all six domains of care. The three domains which showed the largest positive impact of family doctor involvement were: Coordination & Integration of Care, Emotional Concerns, and Information, Communication & Education. The results demonstrate that involving family doctors in cancer care can be beneficial for patients. Based on the observed satisfaction increases in this study, shared care models may be preferred by many patients. These models of care can also help alleviate strain and capacity issues within cancer programs. The results could be used to support recommendations for cancer care teams to regularly involve and communicate with family doctors, to ensure that patients receive comprehensive and tailored care from all their health care providers.

Trends and differences in perceptions of patient-centered communication among adults in the US

OBJECTIVE

Patient-centered communication (PCC) is a key indicator of healthcare quality and is critical to patient-centered care. The purpose of this study is to examine the trends in PCC over the past decade and determine if differences in PCC by subpopulation remain METHODS: We used nationally representative survey data from the Health Information National Trends Study (HINTS) to examine PCC. We conducted trend and multivariate regression analyses to understand the changes of PCC scores and differences in PCC by key sociodemographic groups.

RESULTS

PCC reported among adults minimally increased with the largest increases in participants involved in making decisions regarding their healthcare. Participants who were non-Hispanic Black, older, had less than a high school education, or rural residents reported more positive perceptions of PCC CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate improvements to PCC over time. These findings also indicate that differences in patients' perceptions of PCC continue to persist and it's possible that personal expectations may influence a person's perception of the quality of PCC experienced PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study highlights the continued need for provider education in patient emotional support and providing patients with the skills and resources to engage in high quality PCC.

Implementing a community-based shared care breast cancer survivorship model in Singapore: a qualitative study among primary care practitioners

Background

The adaptability of existing recommendations on shared care implementation to Asian settings is unknown. This qualitative study aims to elicit public- and private-sectors primary care practitioners’ (PCPs) perspectives on the sustainable implementation of a shared care model among breast cancer survivors in Singapore.

Methods

Purposive sampling was employed to engage 70 PCPs from SingHealth Polyclinics, National University Polyclinics, National Healthcare Group Polyclinics, and private practice. Eleven focus groups and six in-depth interviews were conducted between June to November 2018. All sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Guided by the RE-AIM framework, we performed deductive thematic analysis in QSR NVivo 12.

Results

PCPs identified low-risk breast cancer survivors who demonstrated clear acceptability of PCPs’ involvement in follow-up as suitable candidates for shared care. Engagement with institution stakeholders as early adopters is crucial with adequate support through PCP training, return pathways to oncologists, and survivorship care plans as communication tools. Implementation considerations differed across practices. Selection of participating PCPs could consider seniority and interest for public and private practice, respectively. Proposed adoption incentives included increased renumeration for private PCPs and work recognition for public PCPs. Public PCPs further proposed integrating shared care elements to their existing family medicine clinics.

Conclusions

PCPs perceived shared care favorably as it echoed principles of primary care to provide holistic and well-coordinated care. Contextual factors should be considered when adapting implementation recommendations to Asian settings like Singapore. With limited competitive pressure, the government is then pivotal in empowering primary care participation in survivorship shared care delivery.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01673-3.

Work resumption and retention in patients with advanced cancer: Experiences and perspectives of general and occupational health care professionals

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to explore the experiences and perspectives of general and occupational health care professionals regarding work resumption and work retention of patients with advanced cancer, and to identify barriers and facilitators these professionals may encounter.

METHODS

A qualitative design was applied, and individual semistructured interviews were conducted. General and occupational health care professionals were eligible to participate if they were involved in the work participation guidance of patients with advanced cancer, and were recruited through the network of the research team. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically via ATLAS.ti 9.

RESULTS

Interviewees (N = 17) had various occupational backgrounds, for example, occupational physician, reintegration consultant, and general practitioner. Four main themes emerged from the data: (1) Assumptions and hesitations, (2) Patient initiates stakeholder communication, (3) Role dispersion: who is in charge of what? and (4) Experience with legislation creates opportunities.

CONCLUSION

Whereas most interviewees had positive experiences with, and/or optimistic expectations of, the work resumption and work retention of patients with advanced cancer, several barriers to the work participation guidance of these patients were identified. Suggestions for improvement include creating widespread awareness of the possibility of work participation of patients with advanced cancer and developing reintegration guidelines for advanced 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.

Effect of Physical Therapy Modalities on Quality of Life of Head and Neck Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

The objective was to describe the effectiveness of different physical therapy modalities to improve Quality of Life (QoL) in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) survivors. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized clinical controlled trials published until 30 April 2020. Risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis were conducted using the Cochrane tools. A total of 251 records were retrieved, and 10 met the inclusion criteria. Interventions whose parameters focus on a 12-week exercise programs of aerobic activity (walking) or Progressive Resistance Training (PRT) for the whole body are effective and safe modalities improving QoL in HNC survivors. Electrophysical agents did not show significant results between groups. As for the assessment of methodological quality, 4 of the 10 articles included had a high risk of overall bias. Only five articles provided sufficient information to conduct a meta-analysis for exercise program intervention on QoL, showing a tendency in favor of intervention group, even when the global results did not show statistically significant improvements (pooled Cohen's d 0.15; 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.54; I² 45.87%; p heterogeneity = 0.10). The present review and meta-analysis identified meaningful benefits of exercise on QoL of HNC survivors; this has been confirmed in a meta-analysis. This review adds evidence supporting exercise interventions on Head and Neck Cancer population whose opportunities for successful recovery after medical treatment are more limited.

The interdisciplinary and psychosocial gap in cancer survivorship: A longitudinal study in a Latin American Cancer Center

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is lack of information on the quality of care provided to the rapidly increasing population of cancer survivors in Latin America. Our study attempts to address this gap and to identify areas needed to be improved.

METHODS

A random sample of 210 breast and colorectal cancer survivors were selected from a hospital-based registry in Chile. Cancer registry information, electronic chart review, and personal interviews were used to assess medical and nonmedical care over a 5-year period. Survivorship care practices were compared to a standardized reference based on the US Institute of Medicine domains and the American Cancer Association guidelines.

RESULTS

Over 80% of breast and colorectal cancer survivors received appropriate medical care, ongoing testing surveillance and risk factors assessment. Only a third of survivors were assessed for psychosocial disorders and 25% of them received interdisciplinary care. Overall, 66.1% of breast and 58.6% of colorectal cancer survivors reached the expected quality level of cancer survivorship care according to the reference standard (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Medical care practices reached a high standard in a leading cancer center in Latin America. However, a much stronger psychosocial assessment and interdisciplinary care is needed to improve survivorship cancer quality care.

Patient-provider discussion about emotional and social needs, mental health outcomes, and benefit finding among U.S. Adults living with cancer

Background

A discussion about patient's nonmedical needs during treatment is considered a crucial component of high‐quality patient–provider communication. We examined whether having a patient–provider discussion about cancer patients’ emotional and social needs is associated with their psychological well‐being.

Methods

Using the 2016–2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey‐Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement (MEPS–ECSS) data, we identified the cancer survivors in the United States (US) who reported having a detailed discussion about emotional and social needs during cancer care. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between having a patient–provider discussion and the patients’ psychological well‐being outcomes (depressive symptoms, severe psychological distress, and worrying about cancer recurrence/worsening condition) and benefit finding experience after a cancer diagnosis.

Results

Among 1433 respondents (equivalent to 13.8 million cancer survivors in the US), only 33.6% reported having a detailed patient–provider discussion about their emotional and social needs. Having a discussion was associated with 55% lower odds (odds ratio [OR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26–0.77) of having depressive symptoms and 97% higher odds (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.46–2.66) of having benefit finding experience. There was no statistically significant association between patient–provider discussion and psychological distress or worrying about cancer recurrence/worsening.

Conclusion

Detailed patient–provider discussion about the cancer patients’ emotional and social needs was associated with a lower likelihood of depressive symptoms and a higher likelihood of experiencing benefit finding. These findings stress the importance of improving the patient–provider discussion about psychosocial needs in cancer survivorship.

Evidence Gaps in Cancer Survivorship Care: A Report from the 2019 National Cancer Institute Cancer Survivorship Workshop

Today, there are more than 16.9 million cancer survivors in the United States; this number is projected to grow to 22.2 million by 2030. While much progress has been made in understanding cancer survivors needs and in improving survivorship care since the seminal 2006 Institute of Medicine report From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition, there is a need to identify evidence gaps and research priorities pertaining to cancer survivorship. Thus, in April 2019, the National Cancer Institute convened grant-funded extramural cancer survivorship researchers, representatives of professional organizations, cancer survivors, and advocates for a one-day in-person meeting. At this meeting, and in a subsequent webinar aimed at soliciting input from the wider survivorship community, evidence gaps and ideas for next steps in the following six areas, identified from the 2006 Institute of Medicine report, were discussed: surveillance for recurrence and new cancers, management of long-term and late physical effects, management of long-term and late psychosocial effects, health promotion, care coordination, and financial hardship. Identified evidence gaps and next steps across the areas included the need to understand and address disparities among cancer survivors, to conduct longitudinal studies as well as longer-term (>5 years post-diagnosis) follow-up studies, to leverage existing data, and to incorporate implementation science strategies to translate findings into practice. Designing studies to address these broad evidence gaps, as well as those identified in each area, will expand our understanding of cancer survivors' diverse needs, ultimately leading to the development and delivery of more comprehensive evidence-based quality care.

Psychosocial care for cancer survivors: A systematic literature review on the role of general practitioners

OBJECTIVE

To explore the general practitioners (GP's) role in providing psychosocial care for cancer survivors through a systematic literature review.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL and included the studies that complied with the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. At least two independent reviewers performed the quality appraisal and data extraction.

RESULTS

We included 33 (five qualitative, 19 observational, and nine intervention) studies; the majority of these studies focused on care for depression and anxiety (21/33). Cancer survivors were more likely to contact their GP for psychosocial problems compared with noncancer controls. Survivors were more likely to use antidepressants compared with controls, although 71% of survivors preferred depression treatment to be "talking therapy only." Overall, GPs and patients mostly agreed that GPs are the preferred healthcare provider to manage psychosocial problems. The major exception is a survivor's fear of recurrence-here, the oncologist was the preferred healthcare provider. Only two interventions effectively decreased depression or anxiety; these studies included patients who had a clinical indication for psychosocial care, were specifically designed for decreasing depression/anxiety, and consisted of a multidisciplinary team approach. The other interventions evaluated GP-led follow-up for cancer survivors and found that this did not impact the patients' levels of anxiety, depression, or distress neither negatively nor positively.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer survivors often prefer psychosocial care by their GP, and GPs generally consider they are well placed to provide this care. Although evidence on the effectiveness of psychosocial care by GPs is limited, an active multidisciplinary team approach seems key.

A 4-Month Whole-Systems Ayurvedic Medicine Nutrition and Lifestyle Intervention Is Feasible and Acceptable for Breast Cancer Survivors: Results of a Single-Arm Pilot Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Ongoing symptoms and impairments in quality of life (QOL) among breast cancer survivors remain a significant problem. We tested the feasibility and acceptability of a manualized Ayurvedic nutrition and lifestyle intervention for breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

Eligible participants had Stage I-III breast cancer, underwent treatment within the past year that included chemotherapy, and were without active disease. The 4-month individualized Ayurvedic intervention included counseling on nutrition, lifestyle, yoga, and marma (like acupressure) during 8 one-on-one visits with an Ayurvedic practitioner. Feasibility and acceptability were the primary outcomes. QOL (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC QLQ C30]) and symptoms-sleep disturbance (General Sleep Disturbance Scale [GSDS]), fatigue (Lee Fatigue Scale [LFS]), depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale [CES-D]), anxiety (Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory [STAI-S, STAI-T]), and stress (Perceived Stress Scale [PSS])-were measured prior to, at midpoint, and at the end of the 4-month intervention. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated along with paired t tests comparing baseline to end of month 4 time points. Mixed effects models were used for repeated measures analyses.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 32) had a mean age of 48 years (SD = 10). Retention at the end of the intervention was 84%. Among those who completed the intervention (n = 27), adherence was high (99.5% of visits with practitioners attended). Large improvements were seen in QLQ-C30 emotional functioning (d = 0.84, P < 0.001), QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning (d = 0.86, P < 0.001), GSDS (d = -1.23, P < 0.001), and CES-D (d = -1.21, P < 0.001). Moderate improvements were seen in QLQ-C30 global health (d = 0.65, p = 0.003), LFS (d = -0.68, P = 0.002), and PSS (d = -0.75, P < 0.001). No adverse events were observed due to the intervention.

CONCLUSION

This 4-month Ayurvedic whole-systems multimodal nutrition and lifestyle intervention was feasible and acceptable for breast cancer survivors. Promise of clinical benefit was seen in terms of improvements in symptoms and QOL that warrants further investigation.

Physician management of thyroid cancer patients' worry

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to understand physician management of thyroid cancer-related worry.

METHODS

Endocrinologists, general surgeons, and otolaryngologists identified by Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) patients were surveyed 2018-2019 (response rate 69% (448/654)) and asked to rate in general their patients' worry at diagnosis and actions they take for worried patients. Multivariable-weighted logistic regressions were conducted to determine physician characteristics associated with reporting thyroid cancer as "good cancer" and with encouraging patients to seek help managing worry outside the physician-patient relationship.

RESULTS

Physicians reported their patients as quite/very worried (65%), somewhat worried (27%), and a little/not worried (8%) at diagnosis. Half of the physicians tell patients their thyroid cancer is a "good cancer." Otolaryngology (odds ratio (OR) 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-3.21, versus endocrinology), private practice (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.32-4.68, versus academic setting), and Los Angeles (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.45-3.46, versus Georgia) were associated with using "good cancer." If patients are worried, 97% of physicians make themselves available for discussion, 44% refer to educational websites, 18% encourage communication with family/friends, 13% refer to support groups, and 7% refer to counselors. Physicians who perceived patients being quite/very worried were less likely to use "good cancer" (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.84) and more likely to encourage patients to seek help outside the physician-patient relationship (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.17-2.82).

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Physicians perceive patient worry as common and address it with various approaches, with some approaches of unclear benefit. Efforts are needed to develop tailored interventions targeting survivors' psychosocial needs.

Roles and recommendations from primary care physicians towards managing low-risk breast cancer survivors in a shared-care model with specialists in Singapore-a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is prevalent and has high cure rates. The resultant increase in numbers of breast cancer survivors (BCS) may overwhelm the current oncology workforce in years to come. We postulate that primary care physicians (PCPs) could play an expanded role in comanaging survivors, provided they are given the appropriate tools and training to do so.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perspectives of PCPs towards managing BCS in a community-based shared-care programme with oncologists.

METHODS

Eleven focus groups and six in-depth interviews were conducted with seventy PCPs recruited by purposive sampling. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded by three independent investigators. Thematic data analysis was performed and the coding process facilitated by NVivo 12.

RESULTS

Majority of PCPs reported currently limited roles in managing acute and non-cancer issues, optimizing comorbidities and preventive care. PCPs aspired to expand their role to include cancer surveillance, risk assessment and addressing unmet psychosocial needs. PCPs preferred to harmonize cancer survivorship management of their primary care patients who are also BCS, with defined role distinct from oncologists. Training to understand the care protocol, enhancement of communication skills, confidence and trust were deemed necessary. PCPs proposed selection criteria of BCS and adequacy of their medical information; increased consultation time; contact details and timely access to oncologists (if needed) in the shared-care programme.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs were willing to share the care of BCS with oncologists but recommended role definition, training, clinical protocol, resources and access to oncologist's consultation to optimize the programme implementation.

Health care provider and patient preparedness for alternative colorectal cancer follow-up; a review

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) puts pressure on outpatient services due to the growing number of CRC survivors. The aim of this state-of-the-art review was to evaluate setting, manner and provider of follow-up. Moreover, perceptions of CRC survivors and health care providers regarding standard and alternative follow-up were examined. After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database, 69 articles were included reporting on CRC follow-up in the hospital, primary care and home setting. Hospital-based follow-up is most common and has been provided by surgeons, medical oncologists, and gastroenterologists, as well as nurses. Primary care-based follow-up has been provided by general practitioners or nurses. Even though most hospital- or primary care-based follow-up care requires patients to visit the clinic, telephone-based care has proven to be a feasible alternative. Most patients perceived follow-up as positive; valuing screening and detection for disease recurrence and appreciating support for physical and psychosocial symptoms. Hospital-based follow-up performed by the medical specialist or nurse is highly preferred by patients and health care providers. However, willingness of both patients and health care providers for alternative, primary care or remote follow-up exists. Nurse-led and GP-led follow-up have proven to be cost-effective alternatives compared to specialist-led follow-up. If proven safe and acceptable, remote follow-up can become a cost-effective alternative. To decrease the personal and financial burden of follow-up for a growing number of colorectal cancer survivors, a more acceptable, flexible and dynamic care follow-up mode consisting of enhanced communication and role definitions among clinicians is warranted.

Psychological support requirements of haematological cancer survivors: how can health professionals meet their needs?

Complex and intensive treatment may lead to psychosocial issues for haematological cancer survivors, which may endure after treatment. Psychological support is important for cancer survivors but not always available. This study aimed to determine the health professional psychological support needs of post-treatment haematological cancer survivors, through the use of across-sectional survey. Chi-Square analyses were used to calculate the differences in need for psychological support. Open text responses were analysed using quantitative content analysis. Four hundred and nine questionnaires were completed. Around quarter (24.6%) of participants reported needing more psychological support from a health professional, especially those who were aged 18-39, females, 'Other' ethnicity, single, living with other family/roommates, unemployed/on sick leave, suffering significant distress, and those with low/moderate social support. The majority of those desiring more support preferred it from a psychologist/counsellor (58.3%), or a haematologist (39.3%). Haematologists are a regular point of contact for these survivors and not only have the opportunity to discuss psychological issues with patients but to determine who needs referring to further psychological treatment. Furthermore, the a number of participant's reporting theneed for extra psychological support from a psychologist/counsellor means it is imperative that these services are available and known to those requiring them.

Definition and Coordination of Roles and Responsibilities Among Cancer Center Clinic and Research Personnel

PURPOSE

Effective enrollment and treatment of patients in cancer clinical trials require definition and coordination of roles and responsibilities among clinic and research personnel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a survey that incorporated modified components of the Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors. Surveys were administered to clinic nursing staff and research personnel at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. Results were analyzed using χ²-tests, t tests, and analyses of variance.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by 105 staff members (n = 50 research staff, n = 55 clinic staff; 61% response rate). Research staff were more likely to feel that they had the skills to answer questions, convey information, and provide education for patients on trials (all P < .05). Both clinic and research staff reported receipt of communication about responsibilities in fewer than 30% of cases, although research staff reported provision of such information in more than 60% of cases. Among 20 tasks related to care of patients in trials, no single preferred model of responsibility assignment was selected by the majority of clinic staff for nine tasks (45%) or by research staff for three tasks (15%). Uncertainty about which team coordinates care was reported by three times as many clinic staff as research staff (P = .01). There was also substantial variation in the preferred model for delivery of care to patients in trials (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge, attitudes, and perception of care and responsibilities for patients on clinical trials differ between and among clinic and research personnel. Additional research about how these findings affect efficiency and quality of care on clinical trials is needed.

Implications for patient-provider communication and health self-efficacy among cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions: results from the Health Information National Trends Survey

PURPOSE

Cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions experience significant challenges managing their health. The six core functions of patient-centered communication (PCC)-fostering healing relationships, exchanging information, responding to emotions, managing uncertainty, making decisions, and enabling patient self-management-represent a central component to facilitating a survivor's confidence to manage their health that has not been investigated in cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions.

METHOD

Nationally representative data across two iterations of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) were merged with combined replicate weights using the jackknife replication method. Adjusted linear regression examined the association between PCC and health self-efficacy in a sample of breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors and by multiple chronic conditions.

RESULTS

53.9% reported that providers did not always respond to their emotions and 48.9% reported that they could not always rely on their providers to help them manage uncertainty. In the adjusted linear regression models, there was a significant positive association between PCC and health self-efficacy (β = 0.2, p = 0.01) for the entire sample. However, the association between PCC and health self-efficacy was attenuated in cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions (β = 0.1, p = 0.53).

CONCLUSION

PCC alone is not enough to improve a cancer survivor's confidence in their ability to manage their health in the presence of multiple chronic conditions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions need ongoing support, in addition to PCC, that render them prepared to manage their health after cancer.

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.

Long-Term Survivorship Care After Cancer Treatment - Summary of a 2017 National Cancer Policy Forum Workshop

The National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine sponsored a workshop on July 24 and 25, 2017 on Long-Term Survivorship after Cancer Treatment. The workshop brought together diverse stakeholders (patients, advocates, academicians, clinicians, research funders, and policymakers) to review progress and ongoing challenges since the Institute of Medicine (IOM)'s seminal report on the subject of adult cancer survivors published in 2006. This commentary profiles the content of the meeting sessions and concludes with recommendations that stem from the workshop discussions. Although there has been progress over the past decade, many of the recommendations from the 2006 report have not been fully implemented. Obstacles related to the routine delivery of standardized physical and psychosocial care services to cancer survivors are substantial, with important gaps in care for patients and caregivers. Innovative care models for cancer survivors have emerged, and changes in accreditation requirements such as the Commission on Cancer's (CoC) requirement for survivorship care planning have put cancer survivorship on the radar. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation's Oncology Care Model (OCM), which requires psychosocial services and the creation of survivorship care plans for its beneficiary participants, has placed increased emphasis on this service. The OCM, in conjunction with the CoC requirement, is encouraging electronic health record vendors to incorporate survivorship care planning functionality into updated versions of their products. As new models of care emerge, coordination and communication among survivors and their clinicians will be required to implement patient- and community-centered strategies.

Who should provide care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy? A qualitative study among Dutch general practitioners and oncologists

INTRODUCTION

While close collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and hospital specialists is considered important, the sharing of care responsibilities between GPs and oncologists during palliative chemotherapy has not been clearly defined.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the opinions of GPs and oncologists about who should provide different aspects of care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy.

DESIGN

We conducted semi-structured interviews using six hypothetical scenarios with purposively sampled GPs (n = 12) and oncologists (n = 10) in the Netherlands. Each represented an example of a clinical problem requiring different aspects of care: problems likely, or not, related to cancer or chemotherapy, need for decision support, and end-of-life care.

RESULTS

GPs and oncologists agreed that GPs should provide end-of-life care and that they should be involved in decisions about palliative chemotherapy; however, for the other scenarios most participants considered themselves the most appropriate provider of care. Themes that emerged regarding who would provide the best care for the patients in the different scenarios were expertise, continuity of care, accessibility of care, doctor-patient relationship, and communication. Most participants mentioned improved communication between the GP and oncologist as being essential for a better coordination and quality of care.

CONCLUSION

GPs and oncologists have different opinions about who should ideally provide different aspects of care during palliative chemotherapy. Findings raise awareness of the differences in reasoning and approaches and in current communication deficits between the two groups of health professionals. These findings could be used to improve coordination and collaboration and, ultimately, better patient care as results demonstrated that both disciplines can add value to the care for patients with advanced cancer. Key points This study identified contrasting opinions of GPs and oncologists about who should provide different aspects of care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Important themes that emerged were expertise, continuity of care, doctor-patient relations, accessibility of care, and communication. Although frequently using the same arguments, GPs and oncologists often considered themselves to be the most appropriate providers of palliative care.

Unpacking the layers: a meta-ethnography of cancer survivors' loneliness

PURPOSE

To review the empirical qualitative literature on cancer survivor's experiences with loneliness to inform assessments and interventions for improving cancer survivors' social well-being.

METHODS

A rigorous systematic review of qualitative studies published in five databases between 1993 and 2016 was conducted. Three coders reviewed 285 titles and abstracts and, after applying a critical review process, 20 manuscripts were synthesized using meta-ethnography.

RESULTS

The synthesis of the 20 studies provided a framework for understanding survivors' layers of loneliness at the level of the individual, their social support system, the healthcare system, and society. Internally, survivors described loneliness resulting from feelings of inauthenticity, of being alone in their cancer experience, and of lack of control. In their social networks, survivors attributed loneliness to others' avoidance, misperceptions of cancer, and others' failure to recognize the effects of cancer after active treatment. Unmet needs after treatment contributed to feelings of loneliness within the healthcare system. Further, societal stigma around cancer and pressures to experience growth after cancer created another layer of loneliness. The results suggest the need to move beyond an individual level perspective in assessing and treating loneliness in cancer survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-ethnography presents an integrated framework of loneliness in cancer survivors as a multi-layered experience. Implications for Cancer Survivors Conceptualizing loneliness from a systemic perspective adds missing pieces to the loneliness puzzle by encouraging assessment and intervention at interacting levels of functioning; considering how individuals respond to and are affected by their social systems can deepen our understanding of cancer survivorship.

Patient, general practitioner and oncologist views regarding long-term cancer shared care

BACKGROUND

The rising incidence of cancer and increasing number of cancer survivors place competing demands on specialist oncology clinics. This has led to a need to consider collaborative care between primary and secondary care for the long-term post-treatment care of cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the views of breast and colorectal cancer survivors, their oncologist and GP about GPs taking a more active role in long-term cancer follow-up care.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews using a thematic analysis framework. Respondents were asked their views on the specialist hospital-based model for cancer follow-up care and their views on their GP taking a greater or leading role in follow-up care. Researcher triangulation was used to refine the coding framework and emergent themes; source triangulation and participant validation were used to increase credibility.

RESULTS

Fifty-six interviews were conducted (22 patients, 16 oncologists, 18 GPs). Respondents highlighted the importance of GPs needing specialist cancer knowledge; the need for GPs to have an interest in and time for cancer follow-up care; the GPs role in providing psychosocial care; and the reassurance that was provided from a specialist overseeing care. A staged, shared care team arrangement with both GPs and specialists flexibly providing continuing care was found to be acceptable for most.

CONCLUSION

Collaborative care of cancer survivors may lessen the load on specialist oncology clinics. The findings suggest that building this model will require early and ongoing shared care processes.

Developing content for an interprofessional training on fear of cancer recurrence (FCR): Key informant interviews of healthcare professionals, researchers and cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Growing numbers of cancer survivors are receiving healthcare through primary care practitioners, who often lack cancer-specific expertise to effectively treat survivors' concerns. Addressing that gap, this study aimed to develop content for a training on fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), a common concern in survivorship.

METHODS

Grounded in naturalistic inquiry, 42 key-informant interviews were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed for themes. Participants were healthcare professionals, researchers, and cancer survivors Results: Results included themes ranging from: rich conceptualizations of FCR, opportunities and challenges for addressing FCR in healthcare settings, interventions to address FCR, and important information to include in a training on FCR.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides content for an interprofessional training and highlights the importance of developing trainings for interprofessional teams, given identified barriers that physicians face in addressing FCR and other psychosocial concerns of survivors in primary care.

A systematic review of patient perspectives on surveillance after colorectal cancer treatment

PURPOSE

Surveillance after colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment is routine, but intensive follow-up may offer little-to-no overall survival benefit. Given the growing population of CRC survivors, we aimed to systematically evaluate the literature for the patient perspective on two questions: (1) How do CRC patients perceive routine surveillance following curative treatment and what do they expect to gain from their surveillance testing or visits? (2) Which providers (specialists, nursing, primary care) are preferred by CRC survivors to guide post-treatment surveillance?

METHODS

Systematic searches of PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were conducted. Studies were screened for inclusion by two reviewers, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted and evaluated utilizing validated reporting tools (CONSORT, STROBE, CASP) appropriate to study design.

RESULTS

Citations (3691) were screened, 91 full-text articles reviewed, and 23 studies included in the final review: 15 quantitative and 8 qualitative. Overall, 12 studies indicated CRC patients perceive routine surveillance positively, expecting to gain reassurance of continued disease suppression. Negative perceptions described in six studies included anxiety and dissatisfaction related to quality of life or psychosocial issues during follow-up. Although 5 studies supported specialist-led care, 9 studies indicated patient willingness to have follow-up with non-specialist providers (primary care or nursing).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' perceptions of follow-up after CRC are predominantly positive, although unmet needs included psychosocial support and quality of life.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Survivors perceived follow-up as reassuring, however, surveillance care should be more informative and focused on survivor-specific needs.

Provision of integrated psychosocial services for cancer survivors post-treatment

Meeting the psychosocial needs of patients with cancer has been recognised as a priority within oncology care for several decades. Many approaches that address these needs have been developed and described; however, until recently much of this work had focused on patients during treatment and end-of-life care. With continued improvement in therapies, the population of cancer survivors who can expect to live for 5 or more years after cancer diagnosis has increased dramatically, as have associated concerns about how to meet their medical, psychosocial, and health behaviour needs after treatment. Guidelines and models for general survivorship care routinely address psychosocial needs, and similar guidelines for psychosocial care of patients with cancer are being extended to address the needs of survivors. In this Series paper, we summarise the existing recommendations for the provision of routine psychosocial care to survivors, as well as the challenges present in providing this care. We make specific recommendations for the integration of psychosocial services into survivorship care.

Psychosocial outcomes in active treatment through survivorship

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to understand potential differences in psychosocial outcomes from active treatment to survivorship.

METHODS

Using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement (n = 1360), we examined and compared psychosocial outcomes among respondents in active treatment with survivors by year(s) since treatment ended. Survey-weighted regression models were used to test associations between year(s) since treatment and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-2), psychological distress (K6), and cancer-specific worry related to recurrence.

RESULTS

Unadjusted estimates showed no significant differences in depressive symptoms or psychological distress between those in active treatment and cancer survivors at any time posttreatment. In contrast, the prevalence of cancer-specific worry was lowest among survivors more than 5 years since treatment (10%), slightly higher among those with less than 1 year since treatment (15%), and highest among those in active treatment (32%). In models controlled for sociodemographic and health-related covariates, the year(s) since treatment ended was inversely associated with the odds of cancer-specific worry but was not associated with depressive symptoms or psychological distress.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based sample, worry about cancer recurrence may diminish with years since treatment ended, while depressive symptoms and distress are persistent across the trajectory. These findings highlight unmet psychosocial needs among cancer survivors and demonstrate the importance of targeted interventions across the survivorship continuum.

Accessibility, Availability, and Potential Benefits of Psycho-Oncology Services: The Perspective of Community-Based Physicians Providing Cancer Survivorship Care

BACKGROUND

As persons of trust, community-based physicians providing survivorship care (e.g., general practitioners [GPs]) often serve as the primary contacts for cancer survivors disclosing distress. From the perspective of physicians providing survivorship care for cancer patients, this study explores (a) the accessibility, availability, and potential benefits of psycho-oncology services; (b) whether physicians themselves provide psychosocial support; and (c) predictors for impeded referrals of survivors to services.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional survey, all GPs and community-based specialists in a defined region were interviewed. In addition to descriptive analyses, categorical data were investigated by applying chi-square tests. Predictors for impeded referrals were explored through logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 683 responding physicians, the vast majority stated that survivors benefit from psycho-oncology services (96.8%), but the physicians also articulated that insufficient coverage of psycho-oncology services (90.9%) was often accompanied by impeded referrals (77.7%). A substantial proportion (14.9%) of physicians did not offer any psychosocial support. The odds of physicians in rural areas reporting impeded referrals were 1.91 times greater than the odds of physicians in large urban areas making a similar report (95% confidence interval [1.07, 3.40]).

CONCLUSION

Most community-based physicians providing survivorship care regard psycho-oncology services as highly beneficial. However, a large number of physicians report tremendous difficulty referring patients. Focusing on those physicians not providing any psychosocial support, health policy approaches should specifically (a) raise awareness of the role of physicians as persons of trust for survivors, (b) highlight the effectiveness of psycho-oncology services, and (c) encourage a proactive attitude toward the assessment of unmet needs and the initiation of comprehensive care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Community-based physicians providing survivorship care for cancer patients regard psycho-oncology services as a highly reasonable and beneficial addition to medical care. In light of insufficient local coverage with services, difficulties with seamless referrals constitute a major challenge for physicians. Apart from emphasizing the effectiveness of psycho-oncology services and proactive attitudes toward the assessment of unmet needs, future policies should focus on the integration of medical and psychosocial follow-up of cancer survivors, especially in rural areas.

Communication between oncologists and lymphoma survivors during follow-up consultations: A qualitative analysis

Cancer survivors often experience both short- and long-term challenges as a result of their cancer treatment. Many patients report feeling "lost in transition" following cancer treatment. The oncologist plays a key role in helping the patient to transition to survivorship. The purpose of this paper is to provide a descriptive understanding of the clinical care delivered during follow-up visits for lymphoma patients transitioning from active therapy into survivorship. We used thematic text analysis to identify themes in transcripts of audio recordings of 21 physicians and their patients in follow-up visits within 3 years of completing lymphoma treatment. Conversations between oncologists and patients during follow-up visits addressed a variety of themes, including specific health concerns, follow-up care, health promotion, prior treatment and test results, overall health status, emotional communication and affective tone, post-treatment rehabilitation, discussions occurring in the patient's physical examination, and social issues. However, the frequency with which these themes were discussed varied. In addition, there did not appear to be a consistent framework for these visits. The varied nature of the follow-up visits analyzed in this study suggests the need for increased structure in survivorship-care consultations.

A Bio-Psychosocial Intervention Program for Improving Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors - Final Outcome of a Prospective Randomized Trial

Given the 3.1 million breast cancer survivors in America, quality of life (QoL) is a vital issue. Bio-psychosocial milieu of survivorship is increasingly important. This study assesses the impact of Bio-psychosocial Intervention (BPSI) on the QoL of breast cancer survivors utilizing Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) instrument. A prospective randomized trial was designed; intervention arm included a 4-hour BPSI coping skills class; control arm received standard of cancer and follow-up care (SOC). Women diagnosed within 2 years of study initiation were eligible. Sample size was based on 8-point difference in FACT-B score, 90% power, 5% type I error, and 20% attrition. FACT-B questionnaire was administered to all patients at baseline and at 6-month intervals. SAS 9.3 software was used to analyze data using Chi-square test for categorical and Wilcoxon rank sum for ordinal data; linear mixed modeling was used for longitudinal analysis. One-hundred and three of 120 (86%) patients were available for analysis. Forty-seven patients were in BSPI arm, and 56 received SOC. For BPSI arm versus SOC arm, the median (interquartile) age (60 [52.68] versus 58 [52.68] years, p = 0.9135), cancer-stage (0:1:2:3 = 11%:41%:35%:13% versus 18%:46%:22%:15%, p = 0.4645), and biology (ER+:triple negative:HER2+ = 74%:9%:16% versus 72%:7%:20%, p = 0.8454), respectively, was similar. Median (25th to 75th centile) FACT-B scores in BPSI versus SOC arms at baseline were 109 (95.121) versus 112 (95, 122) (p = 0.6125); mean (SE) change since baseline at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months was: 7.42 (2.22) versus 7.04 (1.97) (p = 0.8862); 17.0 (2.64) versus -6.09 (2.37) (p < 0.0001); 16.03 (2.53) versus 3.58 (2.29) (p = 0.0004), and 15.48 (1.89) versus 16.4 (1.71) (p = 0.7966), respectively. The inter-group differences remained after adjusting for confounding variables at baseline. The p-value for interaction among groups over 2 years remained <0.0001 except for breast cancer specific concerns. BPSI coping skills class significantly improved the QoL of breast cancer survivors by 1 year post-intervention time point; this difference narrowed at 18 months and disappeared at 24 months.

Quality of Patient-Provider Communication Among Cancer Survivors: Findings From a Nationally Representative Sample

PURPOSE

Although patient-provider communication is an essential component of health care delivery, little is known about the quality of these discussions among patients with cancer.

METHODS

Data are from the 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer survey among 1,202 adult cancer survivors. We evaluated discussions with any provider after a cancer diagnosis about: (1) follow-up care; (2) late or long-term treatment effects; (3) lifestyle recommendations, such as diet, exercise, and quitting smoking; and (4) emotional or social needs. Using a response scale ranging from "did not discuss" to "discussed in detail," a summary score was constructed to define communication quality as high, medium, or low. Patient factors associated with the quality of provider discussions were examined using multivariable polytomous logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

At the time of the survey, approximately one half of the patients (46%) were either within 1 year (24.1%) or between 1 and 5 years (22.0%) of treatment. More than one third of cancer survivors reported that they did not receive detailed communication about follow-up care, and more than one half reported that they did not receive detailed communication regarding late or long-term effects, lifestyle recommendations, or emotional and social needs. Only 24% reported high-quality communication for all four elements, indicating that the vast majority experienced suboptimal communication. In multivariable analysis, survivors reporting a high communication quality with providers included those who were within 1 year of treatment, between the ages of 18 and 64 years, non-Hispanic black or other ethnicity, and married.

CONCLUSION

Study findings demonstrate gaps in the communication quality experienced by cancer survivors in the United States and help identify survivors for targeted interventions.

Primary Care Physicians' Perspectives of Their Role in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

As survival rates improve, cancer is increasingly considered a chronic illness associated with significant long-term burden and sequelae, both physical and psychological. Various models of cancer care, including primary care physician (PCP)-led and shared-care, have been proposed, though a systematic review of PCPs' perspectives of their role and challenges in providing cancer care remains lacking. This systematic review summarises available literature on PCPs' perspectives of their role in cancer care.

METHODS

Five databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) were systematically searched using keywords and MeSH headings for articles from 1993-2015 exploring PCPs' views of their role in the care of patients/survivors of both child and adult cancers. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts for full-text review, abstracted data and performed a quality assessment.

RESULTS

Thirty-five articles representing the perspectives of 10,941 PCPs were captured. PCPs' confidence to provide care varied according to cancer phase (e.g. treatment versus survivorship), care domain (e.g. acute medical care versus psychological late effects), and disease prevalence (e.g. breast malignancies versus childhood cancers), with preferences for shared- versus independent-care models varying accordingly. Barriers included a lack of timely and specific information/communication from oncologists and limited knowledge/lack of guidelines, as well as lack of time, remuneration and patient trust.

LIMITATIONS

The data was limited by a lack of consideration of the preferences of patients and oncologists, leading to uncertainty about the acceptability and feasibility of suggested changes to cancer care.

DISCUSSION

PCPs appear willing to provide cancer care for patients/survivors; however, they report barriers and unmet needs related to providing such care. Future research/interventions should take into account the preferences and needs of PCPs.

Worry about recurrence in a multi-ethnic population of breast cancer survivors and their partners

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study are to describe racial/ethnic differences and clinical/treatment correlates of worry about recurrence and examine modifiable factors in the health care experience to reduce worry among breast cancer survivors, partners, and pairs.

METHODS

Women with non-metastatic breast cancer identified by the Detroit and Los Angeles SEER registries between 6/05 and 2/07 were surveyed at 9 months and 4 years. Latina and Black women were oversampled. Partners were surveyed at time 2. Worry about recurrence was regressed on sociodemographics, clinical/treatment, and modifiable factors (e.g., emotional support received by providers) among survivors, partners, and pairs.

RESULTS

The final sample included 510 pairs. Partners reported more worry about recurrence than survivors. Compared to Whites, Latinas(os) were more likely to report worry and Blacks were less likely to report worry (all p < 0.05). Partners of survivors who received chemotherapy reported more worry (OR = 2.47 [1.45, 4.22]). Among modifiable factors, survivors and pairs who received more emotional support from providers were less likely to report worry than those survivors and pairs who did not receive such support (OR = 0.56 [0.32, 0.97]) and (OR = 0.45 [0.23,0.85]), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Early identification of survivors and partners who are reporting considerable worry about recurrence can lead to targeted culturally sensitive interventions to avoid poorer outcomes. Interventions focused on health care providers offering information on risk and emotional support to survivors and partners is warranted.

Trends in cancer survivors' experience of patient-centered communication: results from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS)

PURPOSE

Two Institute of Medicine reports almost a decade apart suggest that cancer survivors often feel "lost in transition" and experience suboptimal quality of care. The six core functions of patient-centered communication: managing uncertainty, responding to emotions, making decisions, fostering healing relationships, enabling self-management, and exchanging information, represent a central aspect of survivors' care experience that has not been systematically investigated.

METHODS

Nationally representative data from four administrations of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) was merged with combined replicate weights using the jackknife replication method. Linear and logistic regression models were used to assess (1) characteristics of cancer survivors (N = 1794) who report suboptimal patient-centered communication and (2) whether survivors' patient-centered communication experience changed from 2007 to 2013.

RESULTS

One third to one half of survivors report suboptimal patient-centered communication, particularly on core functions of providers helping manage uncertainty (48 %) and responding to emotions (49 %). In a fully adjusted linear regression model, survivors with more education (Wald F = 2.84, p = .04), without a usual source of care (Wald F = 11.59, p < .001), and in poorer health (Wald F = 9.08, p < .001) were more likely to report less patient-centered communication. Although ratings of patient-centered communication improved over time (p trend = .04), this trend did not remain significant in fully adjusted models.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increased attention to survivorship, many survivors continue to report suboptimal communication with their health care providers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Survivorship communication should include managing uncertainty about future risk and address survivors' emotional needs. Efforts to improve patient-centered communication should focus on survivors without a usual source of care and in poorer health.

The role of the GP in follow-up cancer care: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study is to explore the role of the general practitioners, family physicians and primary care physicians (GP) in the provision of follow-up cancer care.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE and CINAHL were systematically searched for primary research focussing on the role of the GP from the perspective of GPs and patients. Data were extracted using a standardised form and synthesised using a qualitative descriptive approach.

RESULTS

The initial search generated 6487 articles: 25 quantitative and 33 qualitative articles were included. Articles focused on patients' and GPs' perspectives of the GP role in follow-up cancer care. Some studies reported on the current role of the GP, barriers and enablers to GP involvement from the perspective of the GP and suggestions for future GP roles. Variations in guidelines and practice of follow-up cancer care in the primary health care sector exist. However, GPs and patients across the included studies supported a greater GP role in follow-up cancer care. This included greater support for care coordination, screening, diagnosis and management of physical and psychological effects of cancer and its treatment, symptom and pain relief, health promotion, palliative care and continuing normal general health care provision.

CONCLUSION

While there are variations in guidelines and practice of follow-up cancer care in the primary health care sector, GPs and patients across the reviewed studies supported a greater role by the GP.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Greater GP role in cancer care could improve the quality of patient care for cancer survivors. Better communication between the tertiary sector and GP across the cancer phases would enable clear delineation of roles.

A Formative Study of Colon Cancer Surveillance Care: Implications for Survivor-Centered Interventions

Colon cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in the United States, and an increasing number of survivors has underscored the need for improved colon cancer surveillance care quality. Post-treatment surveillance includes follow-up care visits and tests as well as psychosocial support and lifestyle counseling. This formative study explored the individual, interpersonal, and organizational-level factors related to adherence to surveillance care guidelines to identify modifiable factors for potential educational intervention strategies. A convenience sample of 22 survivors (12 women and 10 men) from two cancer centers were recruited to participate in focus groups or key informant telephone interviews to explore their experiences with care after completing treatment and complete a brief survey. Content analysis was used to identify themes. Results confirmed that survivors navigated a complex surveillance care schedule and described a strong trust in their health care providers that guided their follow-up care experiences. Participants defined the terms "survivorship" and "follow-up" in a variety of different ways. Individual-level themes critical to survivors' experiences included having a positive attitude, relying on one's faith, and coping with fears. Interpersonal-level themes centered around interactions and communication with family and health care providers in follow-up care. While organizational-level factors were highlighted infrequently, participants rated office reminder systems and communication among their multiple providers as valuable. Educational interventions capitalizing on survivors' connections with their physicians and focusing on preparing survivors for what to expect in the next phase of their cancer experience, could be beneficial at the end of treatment to activate survivors for the transition to the post-treatment period.

Cancer survivors' receipt of treatment summaries and implications for patient-centered communication and quality of care

OBJECTIVE

The Institute of Medicine recommends cancer survivors completing treatment be provided with a treatment summary to facilitate delivery of patient-centered survivorship care. However, the relationship between treatment summary receipt and patient-centered communication (PCC) and overall quality of care (QOC) are not well understood.

METHODS

Cancer survivors responding to the Health Information National Trends Survey reported treatment summary receipt, QOC, and experiences of six core functions of PCC. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the relationship between treatment summary receipt and PCC. The prevalence of survivors' treatment summary receipt and demographic/clinical characteristics predictive of treatment summary receipt were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 359 respondents with a cancer history, 34.5% reported receiving a treatment summary. Greater treatment burden was associated with increased treatment summary receipt. Treatment summary receipt was associated with higher QOC and more PCC, both overall and for five of the six PCC functions.

CONCLUSION

The receipt of cancer treatment summaries may improve PCC and QOC for survivors.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The positive relationship between treatment summary receipt and survivors' PCC experience substantiates continued efforts to provide treatment summaries to survivors transitioning from active treatment to survivorship care. Future research should characterize mechanisms by which treatment summary provision may enhance PCC.

Updates on Cancer Survivorship Care Planning

Cancer organizations have developed guides and tools to help build cancer survivorship programs and survivorship care plans.

A Qualitative Investigation of Health Care Professionals', Patients' and Partners' Views on Psychosocial Issues and Related Interventions for Couples Coping with Cancer

INTRODUCTION

There is growing evidence that cancer affects couples as an interdependent system and that couple-based psychosocial interventions are efficacious in reducing distress and improving coping skills. However, adoption of a couples-focused approach into cancer care is limited. Previous research has shown that patients and partners hold differing views from health care professionals (HCPs) regarding their psychosocial needs, and HCPs from different disciplines also hold divergent views regarding couples' psychosocial needs. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of HCPs and couples on the provision of couple-focused psychosocial care in routine cancer services.

METHODS

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was undertaken with 20 HCPs (medical oncologists, nurses, psycho-oncology professionals) and 20 couples where one member had been diagnosed with cancer (breast, prostate, head/neck, bowel, multiple myeloma). Interviews were analysed using the framework approach.

RESULTS

Three core themes were identified: "How Do Couples Cope with Cancer?" emphasised the positive and negative coping strategies used by couples, and highlighted that partners perceived a lack of engagement by HCPs. "What Is Couple-focused Psychosocial Care for People with Cancer?" described varying perspectives regarding the value of couple-focused psychosocial care and variation in the types of support couples need among HCPs and couples. Whereas most couples did not perceive a need for specialist couple-focused support and interventions, most HCPs felt couple-focused psychosocial care was necessary. "How Can Couple-Focused Psychosocial Care be Improved?" described couples' view of a need for better provision of information, and the importance of their relationship with oncology clinicians. HCPs identified a lack of confidence in responding to the emotional needs of couples, and barriers to providing psychosocial care, including challenges identifying distress (through screening) and referring distressed individuals/couples for specialist assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

The three core themes revealed discrepancies about couple-focused psychosocial care between HCPs and couples, and HCPs from different professional backgrounds, and several barriers to the provision of psychosocial care for couples. Despite HCPs and couples acknowledging that a couple-focused approach to psycho-social support was potentially beneficial, the majority of couples did not feel they needed specific couple-focused interventions. These issues and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Physician perspectives on colorectal cancer surveillance care in a changing environment

The purpose of this formative qualitatively driven mixed-methods study was to refine a measurement tool for use in interventions to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance care. We employed key informant interviews to explore the attitudes, practices, and preferences of four physician specialties. A national survey, literature review, and expert consultation also informed survey development. Cognitive pretesting obtained participant feedback to improve the survey's face and content validity and reliability. Results showed that additional domains were needed to reflect contemporary interdisciplinary trends in survivorship care, evolving practice changes and current health policy. Observed dissonance in specialists' perspectives poses challenges for the development of interventions and psychometrically sound measurement. Implications for future research include need for a flexible care model with enhanced communication and role definitions among clinical specialists, improvements in surveillance at multilevels (patients, providers, and systems), and measurement tools that focus on multispecialty involvement and the changing practice and policy environment.

Do patients with long-term side effects of cancer treatment benefit from general practitioner support? A literature review

BACKGROUND

Alongside specialist cancer clinics, general practitioners have an important role in cancer patients' follow-up care, yet no literature summarises the nature, extent and impact of their involvement. This paper addresses this issue through a review of the literature.

METHODS

Studies were sourced from six academic databases - AustHealth (n = 202), CINAHL (n = 500), the Cochrane Library (reviews and trials; n = 200), Embase (n = 368), PHCRIS (n = 132) and PubMed/Medline (n = 410). Studies that focused on interventions designed for patients receiving follow-up care and reported cancer care provided by a general practitioner delivered alongside specialist care were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 19 papers were identified as relevant for this review (3 randomised control trials; 4 cross-sectional, 5 cohort and 3 qualitative studies, and 3 systematic reviews). The reviewed studies indicated that providing general practitioner-led supportive interventions for post-treatment care of cancer patients is feasible and acceptable to patients. General practitioner involvement resulted in improved physical and psychosocial well-being of patients and continuity of care, especially for patients with concomitant health conditions.

CONCLUSION

Involving general practitioners in post-treatment cancer care is beneficial to patients. However, proactive initiatives that encourage and facilitate patients to consult their general practitioner about their needs or symptoms of recurrence should be considered.

Cancer-related worry in Canadian thyroid cancer survivors

CONTEXT

Little is known about cancer-related worry in thyroid cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVES

We quantified cancer-related worry in Canadian thyroid cancer survivors and explored associated factors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We performed a cross-sectional, self-administered, written survey of thyroid cancer survivor members of the Thyroid Cancer Canada support group. Independent factors associated with cancer-related worry were identified using a multivariable linear regression analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

We used the Assessment of Survivor Concerns (ASC) questionnaire, which includes questions on worry about diagnostic tests, second primary malignancy, recurrence, dying, health, and children's health.

RESULTS

The response rate for eligible members was 60.1% (941 of 1567). Most respondents were women (89.0%; 837 of 940), and the age was < 50 years in 54.0% of participants (508 of 941). Thyroid cancer was diagnosed within ≤ 5 years in 66.1% of participants (622 of 940). The mean overall ASC score was 15.34 (SD, 4.7) (on a scale from 6 [least worry] to 24 [most worry]). Factors associated with increased ASC score included: younger age (P < .001), current suspected or proven recurrent/persistent disease (ie, current proven active disease or abnormal diagnostic tests) (P < .001), partnered marital status (P = .021), having children (P = .029), and ≤5 years since thyroid cancer diagnosis (P = .017).

CONCLUSIONS

In a population of Canadian thyroid cancer survivors, cancer-related worry was greatest in younger survivors and those with either confirmed or suspected disease activity. Family status and time since thyroid cancer diagnosis were also associated with increased worry. More research is needed to confirm these findings and to develop effective preventative and supportive strategies for those at risk.

Survivorship care planning and its influence on long-term patient-reported outcomes among colorectal and lung cancer survivors: the CanCORS disease-free survivor follow-up study

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the relationship between survivorship care planning (SCP) and survivorship care and health outcomes reported by long-term lung and colorectal cancer survivors.

METHODS

Participants (n = 832) were diagnosed and enrolled during 2003-2005. In 2012, patient-reported outcomes (survivorship care and health outcomes) and two patient-reported SCP measures (receipt of written summary of cancer treatment and receipt of instructions on who to see for routine cancer follow-up) were collected. Analyses controlled for SCP predictors collected from medical records and an interview 1 year after diagnosis.

RESULTS

One in four survivors reported receiving both SCP elements. Those receiving both were more certain which doctor was in charge (odds ratio (OR) 7.0; 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) 3.9-12.5), more likely to report follow-up checkup (OR 5.1; 95 % CI 3.3-8.0), and had an MRI/PET/CT scan in the past 2 years (OR 2.8; 95 % CI 1.7-4.7) compared to those receiving neither. Physician communication experiences were significantly more positive and having physical exams (OR 2.0; 95 % CI 1.2-3.4) and meeting exercise guidelines (OR 1.6; 95 % CI 1.004-2.4) more likely. Physical health (p = 0.012) and good-to-excellent self-perceived health status (OR 2.2; 95 % CI 1.3-3.9) were better for those receiving both elements.

CONCLUSION

SCP may lead to better cancer follow-up care, long-term physical health, and physician-patient communication experiences.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The positive association between outcomes and SCP suggests that efforts to implement SCP should be fruitful.

Cancer survivorship issues: life after treatment and implications for an aging population

The US population of cancer survivors age ≥ 65 years will continue to grow rapidly over the next few decades. This growth will be driven largely by the aging of the national population. With the diffusion of earlier detection and more effective therapies, the majority of these individuals can expect to live long term after diagnosis. This often vulnerable group of survivors poses significant challenges for both researchers and clinicians with regard to how best to document and address its unique health care needs. In this article, we briefly review the long-term and late-occurring effects of cancer and its treatment in older survivors, review information on current patterns of post-treatment care and the evolving guidelines for this care, and discuss opportunities for future research.