Cancer survivors' perspectives on delivery of survivorship care by primary care physicians: an internet-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Helping cancer survivors to transition from active treatment to long-term survivorship requires coordinated efforts by both oncologists and primary care physicians (PCPs). This study aims to evaluate cancer survivors' perspectives on PCP-delivered survivorship care. METHODS: We conducted an Internet-based cross-sectional survey of cancer survivors via www.OncoLink.org . Regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with perception of PCP-delivered survivorship care. RESULTS: The 352 respondents rated overall PCP-delivered survivorship care as 60 out of 100 (SD = 23). The areas of care most strongly endorsed were general care (62 %), psychosocial support (65 %), and holistic care (68 %). Survivors were less likely to perceive their PCPs as knowledgeable about cancer follow-up (43 %), late or long-term effects of cancer therapy (45 %), and diagnosis and treatment of symptoms related to cancer or cancer therapy (42 %). While 72 % of survivors reported satisfaction with their PCP's care overall, only 41 % felt that their PCPs and oncologists communicated well with one another. In a multivariate regression analysis, higher trust in PCP (p < 0.001), non-white race (p = 0.001), living in the United States (p = 0.007), and visiting a PCP two or more times per year (p = 0.009) were significantly associated with higher ratings of PCP-delivered survivorship care. CONCLUSIONS: While cancer survivors in general are satisfied with care delivery by PCPs, they perceived that their PCPs have limited abilities in performing cancer-specific follow-up and late effect monitoring and treatment. Better education of family physicians about survivorship issues and improved communication between PCPs and oncologists are needed to improve PCPs' delivery of survivorship care.

Further validation of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory in a US adult population sample.

BACKGROUND: The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20) was developed in 1995. Since then, it has been widely used in cancer research and cancer-related illnesses but has never been validated in fatiguing illnesses or in a large US population-selected sample. In this study, we sought to examine the reliability and validity of the MFI-20 in the population of the state of Georgia, USA. Further, we assessed whether the MFI-20 could serve as a complementary diagnostic tool in chronically fatigued and unwell populations. METHODS: The data derive from a cross-sectional population-based study investigating the prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in Georgia. The study sample was comprised of three diagnostic groups: CFS-like (292), chronically unwell (269), and well (222). Participants completed the MFI-20 along with several other measures of psychosocial functioning, including the Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36 (SF-36), the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), and the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). We assessed the five MFI-20 subscales using several criteria: inter-item correlations, corrected item-total correlations, internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficients), construct validity, discriminant (known-group) validity, floor/ceiling effects, and convergent validity through correlations with the SF-36, SDS, and STAI instruments. RESULTS: Averaged inter-item correlations ranged from 0.38 to 0.61, indicating no item redundancy. Corrected item-total correlations for all MFI-20 subscales were greater than 0.30, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients achieved an acceptable level of 0.70. No significant floor/ceiling effect was observed. Factor analysis demonstrated factorial complexity. The MFI-20 also distinguished clearly between three diagnostic groups on all subscales. Furthermore, correlations with depression (SDS), anxiety (STAI), and functional impairment (SF-36) demonstrated strong convergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides support for the MFI-20 as a valuable tool when used in chronically unwell and well populations. It also suggests that the MFI-20 could serve as a complementary diagnostic tool in fatiguing illnesses, such as CFS.