Patient-centered development of a bladder cancer survivorship care plan.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop a patient-centered survivorship care plan (SCP) for US military Veteran bladder cancer (BC) survivors in accordance with the National Academy of Medicine recommendation that survivors receive an SCP at treatment completion. BC, which differentially impacts older men, is a costly and highly recurrent cancer associated with invasive procedures and long-term surveillance. Veteran BC survivors may face challenges navigating the patient-to-survivor transition due to their age and comorbidities. METHODS: We conducted 20 one-on-one qualitative interviews and 2 focus groups with Veteran BC survivors to understand their preferences for information and support to inform SCP development. Data were analyzed using rapid analysis. RESULTS: Participants voiced concerns about BC's impact on their psychosocial functioning and quality of life. They suggested information on BC recurrences, recommended surveillance schedules, long-term side effects and healthy living, and how and when to seek help if a medical problem arises should be included on the SCP to help manage expectations and access key resources during survivorship. Although participants had varying needs, many recommended including information on supportive resources (e.g., support groups, peer support programs) to manage cancer-related anxiety. Participants also suggested including Veteran-centered information (e.g., Veterans' BC risk factors). CONCLUSION: We developed an SCP to help Veteran BC survivors navigate the transition from patient to survivor. Adapting an SCP to address specific needs of the Veteran population was an important step in supporting Veteran BC survivors. Future research should evaluate the potential effectiveness of this SCP at improving Veterans' health outcomes and healthcare experiences.

Cancer survivorship experiences in Utah: an evaluation assessing indicators of survivors' quality of life, health behaviors, and access to health services.

PURPOSE: The 2016-2020 Utah Comprehensive Cancer Prevention and Control Plan prioritized strategies to address cancer survivorship experiences. In this paper we present estimates for nine indicators evaluating these priorities, trends over time, and assess disparities in survivorship experiences across demographic subgroups. METHODS: We surveyed a representative sample of Utah cancer survivors diagnosed between 2012 and 2019 with any reportable cancer diagnosis. We calculated weighted percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each indicator. We assessed change over time using a test for trend across survey years in a logistic regression model and used Rao-Scott F-adjusted chi-square tests to test the association between demographic characteristics and each survivorship indicator. RESULTS: Most of the 1,793 respondents (93.5%) reported their pain was under control, 85.7% rated their overall health as good, very good, or excellent, but 46.5% experienced physical, mental, or emotional limitations. Only 1.7% of survivors aged 75 or older were current smokers, compared to 5.8% of 65-74-year-olds and 7.9% of survivors aged 55-74 (p < 0.006). No regular physical activity was reported by 20.6% and varied by survivor age and education level. The proportion who received a survivorship care plan increased from 34.6% in 2018 to 43.0% in 2021 (p = 0.025). However, survivors under age 55 were significantly less likely to receive a care plan than older survivors. CONCLUSION: This representative survey of cancer survivors fills a gap in understanding of the cancer survivorship experience in Utah. Results can be used to evaluate and plan additional interventions to improve survivorship quality of life.

Colorectal cancer survivorship care plans: Variations in documentation and posttreatment surveillance recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans (SCP) should outline pertinent information about cancer treatment and follow-up. METHODS: We descriptively analyzed the content of 74 colorectal cancer SCPs completed as part of a randomized, controlled trial of SCPs at an academic and community cancer center. Surveillance recommendations were compared with American Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. RESULTS: SCP information provided in >80% of the plans included participant age, cancer diagnosis, details, and side-effects of treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation) and health promotion recommendations. SCP content documented less frequently included predisposing conditions, genetic counseling/testing information and staging. Posttreatment surveillance recommendations were documented in >90% SCPs. For stage 2-3 cancer, rates of guideline concordant recommendations were 100% for colonoscopy surveillance (Year 1 only), 87% for imaging surveillance, 65% for carcinoembryonic antigen surveillance, and 33% for follow-up visits. Excluding colonoscopy, >15 unique recommendations were listed for each modality across stages and sites, with more variation at the academic site. CONCLUSIONS: SCPs consistently recorded information about cancer diagnosis and treatment but omitted critical information about cancer-specific details denoting risk. Surveillance recommendations varied considerably between cancer centers. Future work to improve the consistency of surveillance recommendations documented in SCPs may be needed.

Evaluation of survivorship care plans in patients attending the Sydney Cancer Survivorship Centre.

PURPOSE: The transitioning of cancer survivors from active treatment to surveillance care has been described as uncoordinated, with lack of communication between healthcare professionals. Survivorship care plans (SCP) are recommended to bridge this transitioning period and help improve coordination of care. SCP contain individualized information about a survivor's cancer diagnosis, treatment, and recommendations for managing treatment-related side effects and improving lifestyle risk factors for cancer recurrence and chronic disease. The aims of the study were to assess the delivery, usefulness, and compliance with SCP of survivors attending a multidisciplinary survivorship clinic and to determine patient suggestions regarding how to improve SCP. METHODS: A total of 110 survivors were interviewed in-person or by phone regarding their SCP following a script with formalized questions. Data were analyzed quantitatively using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 65% of participants (72/110) acknowledged having received a SCP and 86% found them useful. Only 11% of survivors (8/72) showed their SCP to other health professionals and about half (33/72) showed it to family/friends. Ninety percent of survivors (65/72) reported following at least one recommendation in their SCP. CONCLUSION: Survivors found SCP helpful but did not share them with other healthcare providers, which questions their usefulness in coordinating care. There were challenges with SCP delivery. Survivors reported they were compliant with SCP lifestyle recommendations. Further research is required to address the utility of SCP to other stakeholders, such as general practitioners, to determine whether they receive the SCP, if they find them helpful, and their expectations regarding SCP.

Barriers and facilitators to the use of survivorship care plans by hematopoietic stem cell transplant survivors and clinicians.

PURPOSE: Survivors of hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) have complex care needs for the remainder of their lives, known as the survivorship period. Survivorship care plans (SCPs) have been proposed to improve care coordination and ultimately survivorship outcomes. We explored the barriers and facilitators of SCP use among HSCT survivors and their clinicians in order to develop more useful SCPs for the HSCT context. METHODS: Analogous surveys regarding perceived barriers to and facilitators of SCP use based on a sample SCP for a female allogenic HSCT survivor were administered to HSCT survivors and non-transplant oncology and primary care clinicians. RESULTS: Twenty-seven HSCT survivors and 18 clinicians completed the survey. The main barriers to SCP use were lack of awareness of SCP existence, uncertainty regarding where to find SCP, unclear roles and responsibilities among healthcare teams, length of SCP, and difficultly understanding SCPs. The facilitators of SCP use were increased understanding of survivorship care needs, clarified roles and responsibilities of survivors and clinicians, SCPs that are readily available and searchable in electronic health record, increased awareness of SCP existence and provision to all survivors, and if the SCP is survivor-specific and up-to-date. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the work regarding SCPs has looked at barriers to creation and provision; however, our study examines factors influencing use of SCPs. By determining the barriers and facilitators surrounding SCP use for HSCT survivors and their clinicians, we can create SCP templates and clinical workflows to optimize SCP use, ideally leading to better outcomes for HSCT survivors.

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.

Re-engineering Survivorship Care Plans to Support Primary Care Needs and Workflow: Results From an Engineering, Primary Care and Oncology Collaborative for Survivorship Health (EPOCH).

Maintaining the health of survivors requires communication, collaboration and care coordination between oncology and primary care. Primary care clinicians have been acknowledged as important recipients of survivorship care plans (SCPs); however, current SCP templates have not been evaluated for usefulness in the primary care context. We surveyed and interviewed primary care clinicians from a rural research network regarding SCP content, format and layout (phase 1), and potential use and clinical workflows around SCPs (phase 2). Based on these data, an existing SCP template was iteratively redesigned to better support survivorship care in the primary care setting. A total of 13 clinicians (9 MDs, 4 APPs) participated. Interviewees advocated for maintaining a single SCP document shared by survivors and clinicians. Changes to the SCP template included prioritizing follow-up over summary of treatment and removing or down-playing screening recommendations not impacted by cancer or cancer treatment. The re-engineered SCP was regarded as highly relevant for survivors, but clinicians noted the significant effort to "disassemble" SCPs in order to enter the information into on the receiving health record. Primary care clinicians value the information in SCPs but had important recommendations regarding content, layout, and format. Additionally, a significant effort appears to be required by recipients in order to extract SCP information for future use.

What are survivorship care plans failing to tell men after prostate cancer treatment?

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans contain important information for patients and primary care physicians regarding appropriate care for cancer survivors after treatment. We describe the completeness of prostate cancer survivorship care plans and evaluate the concordance of follow-up recommendations with guidelines. METHODS: We analyzed 119 prostate cancer survivorship care plans from one academic and one community cancer center, abstracting demographics, cancer/treatment details, and follow-up recommendations. Follow-up recommendations were compared with the American Cancer Society (ACS), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. RESULTS: Content in >90% of plans included cancer TNM stage; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis; radiation treatment details (98% of men received radiation); and PSA monitoring recommendations. Potential treatment-specific side effects were listed for 82% of men who had surgery, 86% who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and 97% who underwent radiation. The presence of posttreatment symptoms was noted in 71% of plans. Regarding surveillance follow-up, all guidelines recommend an annual digital rectal exam (DRE). No plans specified DRE. However, all 71 plans at the community site recommended at least annual follow-up visits with urology, radiation oncology, and primary care. Only 2/48 plans at the academic site specified follow-up visits. All guidelines recommend PSA testing every 6-12 months for 5 years, then annually. For the first 5 years, 90% of plans were guideline-concordant, 8% suggested oversurveillance, and 2% were incomplete. In men receiving ADT, ACS and ASCO recommend bone density imaging and NCCN recommends testosterone levels. Of 77 men on ADT, 1% were recommended bone density imaging and 16% testosterone level testing. CONCLUSIONS: While care plan content is more complete for demographic and treatment summary information, both sites had gaps in reporting posttreatment symptoms and ADT-related testing recommendations. These findings highlight the need to improve the quality of information in care plans, which are important in communicating appropriate follow-up recommendations to patients and primary care physicians.

Catalyzing Navigation for Breast Cancer Survivorship (CaNBCS) in Safety-Net Settings: A Mixed Methods Study.

PURPOSE: The current number of breast cancer survivors (BCS) in the United States is approximately 3.8 million, and this number is further expected to increase with improvement in treatments. Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are patient-centered tools that are designed to meet cancer survivors' informational needs about their treatment history, recommended health care, and health maintenance. However, the data on SCP benefits remain uncertain, especially in low-income and racial and ethnic minority cancer survivors. Patient navigation is an effective intervention to improve patient adherence and experience of interdisciplinary breast cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to understand the role of lay patient navigators (LPN) in survivorship care planning for BCS in safety-net settings. METHODS: This study is a mixed methods pilot randomized clinical trial to understand the role of patient navigation in cancer survivorship care planning in a public hospital. We invited BCS who had completed active breast cancer treatment within 5 years. LPNs discussed survivorship care planning and survivorship care-related issues with BCS in the intervention arm over a 6-month intervention period and accompanied patients to their primary care appointment. LPNs also encouraged survivors to discuss health care issues with oncology and primary care providers. The primary objective was to assess BCS' health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The secondary objectives were self-efficacy and implementation. We assessed implementation with 45-60-min semi-structured interviews with 15 BCS recruited from the intervention arm and 60-min focus groups with the oncologists and separately with LPNs. RESULTS: We enrolled 40 patients, 20 randomized to usual care and 20 randomized to LPN navigation. We did not find a statistically significant difference between the two arms in HRQOL. There was also no difference in self-efficacy between the two arms. Qualitative analysis identified implementation barriers to intervention that may have contributed to less effective intervention. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Future survivorship care planning interventions need to consider: Cancer survivors' needs and preferences, the need for dedicated resources, and the role of electronic health records in survivorship care plan delivery.

Dissemination of cancer survivorship care plans: who is being left out?

OBJECTIVES: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) recommend a clear and effectively explained comprehensive survivorship care plan (SCP) be given to all cancer survivors. The objective of this study is to understand the relationship between social determinants of health (SDOH) and self-reported receipt of SCP by cancer survivors in the USA. METHODS: We analyzed an adult population of cancer survivors in the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System's (BRFSS) Survivorship modules. Weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association of SDOH and reported receipt of SCP. RESULTS: There were 7061 cancer patients eligible for an SCP. The probability of reporting receipt of SCP decreased with lower educational achievement (high school/some college: AOR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.97, p = 0.02; < high school: AOR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47-0.97, p = 0.03) compared to those with at least one college degree. Additionally, being widowed/divorced/separated (widowed/divorced/separated: AOR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.61-0.86, p < 0.01 vs. married/cohabiting) and uninsured (uninsured: AOR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.0.34-0.80, p < 0.01 vs. insured) increased the odds of not receiving an SCP. Younger patients were more likely to receive an SCP than those over 65 (18-24 years: AOR = 6.62, 95% CI: 1.87-24.49, p < 0.01 vs. 65+ years). CONCLUSION: Among cancer survivors, SDOH such as low educational achievement, widowed/divorced/separated marital status, and being uninsured were associated with a lower likelihood of receiving an SCP. Future studies should evaluate how omission of SCP in these patients influences the quality of care during the transition from oncologists to primary care.

Primary care physician's confidence and coordination regarding the survivorship care for older breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: To examine primary care physician's (PCPs) internal (confidence, training) and external (communication, receipt of survivorship care plans (SCPs)) regarding their provision of survivorship care to older breast cancer survivors METHOD: A web-based questionnaire was completed individually by PCPs about their training and areas of survivorship they address under their care. A subset of survey participants was interviewed about survivorship care for older breast cancer survivors, care coordination, and areas of improvement regarding SCPs. RESULTS: PCPs (n = 29) had an average 13.5 years in family practice. Forty-five percent surveyed as "somewhat confident" or "not confident" evaluating and managing the late effects of cancer treatment, and 25% surveyed as "somewhat confident" or "not confident" addressing the chronic comorbidities of older breast cancer survivors. More than half of PCPs surveyed that they reach out to their patients' oncologist "a little" or "none of the time" and that they receive SCPs "a little" or "none of the time." Semi-structured interviews also indicated that many PCPs did not receive a SCP from their patients' oncologists and that communication between the two providers regarding survivorship care was poor. CONCLUSION: Participants indicated that PCP confidence in providing survivorship care is lacking and that lack of training, infrequent communication with oncologists, and underutilization of SCPs may contribute to this lack of confidence. These findings provide insight into the possible need for a well-defined shared care model, which has been encouraged but not always a routine part of survivorship care in various practice settings.

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.

Cancer patient perspectives on survivorship goals from the Smart Patients online community.

BACKGROUND: Cancer impacts individuals' life goals. Recent cancer care guidelines recommend discussing life goals as part of patient-provider communication. The goal of this study was to understand patients' attitudes toward goal sharing with their cancer care providers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Semi-structured questionnaires were conducted via email with cancer patients and survivors (n = 39) on an online social network called Smart Patients. Participants answered open-ended questions about their life goals. They then completed a survey regarding their attitudes toward goal sharing with healthcare providers. The study team used an integrated inductive-deductive qualitative analysis to identify conceptual themes. RESULTS: Participants listed goals related to improving physical activity, control, enjoyment/leisure, and inner strength while reducing pain, anxiety, fear of recurrence, and uncertainty. Most of these goals were life goals rather than goals specifically related to medical care. Across all goals, there was a focus on returning to normality. Our findings show that 87% of participants expect their cancer specialist to discuss their treatment preferences and goals regularly with them. However, participants were reluctant to share their goals with their providers. Respondents felt that their providers did not have an interest in their life goals or time to address them in addition to their medical treatment. CONCLUSION: Even though cancer patient-provider communication guidelines advocate for discussions around life goals, participants in this study expressed reluctance to share life goals with providers. Further efforts to align expectations of patients and providers may facilitate adherence to cancer communication guidelines about life goals. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer survivors should be aware that discussing life goals is part of recommended communication with their cancer care teams.

Communicating Critical Information to Cancer Survivors: an Assessment of Survivorship Care Plans in Use in Diverse Healthcare Settings.

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) serve to communicate critical information needed for cancer survivors' long-term follow-up care. The extent to which SCPs are tailored to meet the specific needs of underserved patient populations is understudied. To fill this gap, this study aimed to assess the content and communication appropriateness of SCPs collected from diverse healthcare settings. We analyzed collected SCPs (n = 16) for concordance with Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations for SCP content and for communication appropriateness using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument. All plans failed to incorporate all IOM criteria, with the majority of plans (n = 11) incorporating less than 60% of recommended content. The average reading grade level of all the plans was 14, and only one plan received a superior rating for cultural appropriateness. There is significant variation in the format and content of SCPs used in diverse hospital settings and most plans are not written at an appropriate reading grade level nor tailored for underserved and/or minority patient populations. Co-designing SCPs with diverse patient populations is crucial to ensure that these documents are meeting the needs and preferences of all cancer survivors.

Perspectives of Survivorship Care Plans Among Older Breast Cancer Survivors: A Pilot Study.

The Commission on Cancer's standard 3.3 represents a paradigm shift in the care of cancer survivors, recommending that survivors receive a treatment summary and survivorship care plan (SCPs). A focus on older breast cancer survivors is needed, as they are the majority of the breast cancer population and their experiences and perspectives of SCPs is limited in the literature. This pilot study utilized a mixed methods approach (focus groups and self-report questionnaire data) to gather information on older (≥65 years) breast cancer survivors' perspectives of their SCPs, cancer survivorship, and communication with their health-care providers. The questionnaire was completed individually by the participants prior to the focus group and contained items on basic demographics and their health status following cancer treatment. The focus groups indicated that only a minority of women actually developed a SCP. Those who developed a SCP in collaboration with their providers valued the personal care and attention received. However, some participants reported poor communication with their providers and within their health-care team, resulting in frustration and confusion. Participants' suggestions for ideal SCPs included better education and personalization, particularly in appropriate nutrition and exercise, and managing side effects and comorbidities. Lastly, the women believed that additional long-term care resources, such as health coaches, were important in improving their survivorship. These findings provide insight into enhancing the content, communication, and application of SCPs to improve the survivorship experience of older breast cancer survivors.

Primary care physicians' perspectives of the survivorship care for older breast cancer survivors: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate primary care physicians' (PCPs) role in survivorship care of older breast cancer survivors, their experiences and opinions of survivorship care plans (SCPs), and suggestions for improving care coordination and facilitation of SCPs among older (≥ 65 years) breast cancer survivors. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was completed individually by PCPs about their training and what areas of survivorship they address under their care. A subset of survey participants were interviewed about survivorship care, care coordination, and the appropriateness and effects of SCPs on older breast cancer survivors' outcomes. RESULTS: Physician participants (N = 29) had an average of 13.5 years in practice. PCPs surveyed that their main role was to provide general health promotion and their least common role was to manage late- and/or long-term effects. Semi-structured interviews indicated that the majority of PCPs did not receive a SCP from their patients' oncologists and that communication regarding survivorship care was poor. Participants' suggestions for improvements to SCPs and survivorship care included regular communication with oncologists, delegation from oncologists regarding roles, and mutual understanding of each other's roles. CONCLUSION: PCPs indicated that survivorship care and SCPs should be improved, regarding communication and roles related to their patients' survivorship. PCPs should assume an active role to enhance PCP-oncologist communication. Future research in PCPs' role in survivorship care in a broad, diverse cancer survivor population is warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: More attention needs to focus on the importance of PCPs, as they are an integral part of dual management for older breast cancer survivors post-treatment.

Impact of Survivorship Care Plans and Planning on Breast, Colon, and Prostate Cancer Survivors in a Community Oncology Practice.

With a growing number of cancer survivors, survivorship care plans (SCPs) are recommended to communicate information about late effects of treatment and follow-up care. Community oncology practices follow 85% of adult cancer survivors but report more difficulty in providing SCPs compared to academic centers. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of delivering SCPs in a community oncology practice by examining awareness of SCP receipt as well as how provision affects survivors' perception of care quality and of their condition. Survivors who accepted a SCP as standard of care were recruited from a community oncology practice in the Midwest and completed surveys prior to SCP provision (baseline) and 4 weeks later (follow-up). Within-survivor changes in knowledge of SCP receipt, satisfaction and perceived care coordination were assessed. Thirty cancer survivors (breast, colon, and prostate) completed the baseline survey, while 24 completed the follow-up survey (80% response rate). Participants reported receiving SCPs and treatment summaries more frequently at follow-up after receiving a SCP. At follow-up, there was a significant increase in survivor activation and involvement in care along with satisfaction of knowledge of care. Communication about and during SCP provision may need to be clearer: 34% of survivors could not correctly identify SCP receipt in this study. This may place these survivors at a disadvantage, if this leads to less awareness of important information regarding follow-up surveillance and management. Of those aware of SCP receipt, SCP provision had positive impacts in this small, short-term study.

A randomized trial of immediate versus delayed survivorship care plan receipt on patient satisfaction and knowledge of diagnosis and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) and care-planning sessions have been recommended for over a decade, yet evidence for their benefit remains mixed. In a randomized trial, changes in survivor knowledge and satisfaction before and after the receipt of an SCP were assessed. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer who had completed curative-intent treatment were randomized to immediate versus delayed receipt of an individualized SCP. All participants completed the modified Wisconsin Survey of Cancer Diagnosis and Management in Breast Cancer and the Preparing for Life As a New Survivor survey to assess individual knowledge about cancer diagnosis, treatment, side effects, and follow-up as well as satisfaction with communication and care coordination. Surveys were completed at baseline, at 4 weeks (before delayed receipt), and again at 12 weeks (after all participants had received SCPs); the primary outcome was change in knowledge at 4 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 127 eligible women were randomized. An improvement in individual knowledge was observed between baseline and week 12 for both arms combined (+1.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.3; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in the change in knowledge from baseline through week 4 between the arms. No significant change occurred for satisfaction scores over time. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial of immediate versus delayed SCP receipt demonstrated a small improvement (4%) in survivor knowledge. However, this improvement did not appear to be related to SCP provision. The authors hypothesized that the improvement was because of repeated administration of the knowledge survey. If improved survivor knowledge is a goal, then strategies beyond the 1-time provision and review of an SCP should be explored.

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

PURPOSE: Limited understanding of factors affecting uptake and outcomes of different cancer survivorship care models hampers implementation of best practices. We conducted a formative evaluation of stakeholder-perceived acceptability and feasibility of an embedded primary care provider (PCP) survivorship care model. METHODS: We identified clinical, operational, and patient stakeholders within Kaiser Permanente Southern California and conducted semi-structured interviews. Analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), an integrated framework from the field of implementation science. Deductive thematic categories were derived a priori from CFIR domains; thematic sub-categories were developed inductively. RESULTS: We interviewed 12 stakeholders; multiple themes were identified. Acceptability: oncologists and operational leaders perceived that the model was an acceptable solution to issues of capacity and efficiency with the potential to improve quality; however, several oncologists perceived negative consequences including "[loss of] the joy of medicine." Patients were less enthusiastic, fearing the introduction of "[someone] who doesn't know me." Feasibility: confidence was high that this model can succeed, although there was concern about finding the right PCP and investment in training and staff support. Culture/climate: numerous system-level facilitators were identified, including encouragement of innovation and familiarity with developing new models. CONCLUSIONS: Formative evaluation is a critical pre-implementation process. Acceptability and feasibility for this model were high among oncologists and operational leaders but patients were ambivalent. Keys to successful implementation include training and support of engaged PCPs and a patient transition plan introduced early in the care trajectory.

Cancer survivorship care plans, financial toxicity, and financial planning alleviating financial distress among cancer survivors.

Concomitant with the increasing use of cancer care plans has been an increasing awareness of the potential for oncology care to result in long-term financial burdens and financial toxicity. Cancer survivors can benefit from information on support and resources to help them navigate the challenges after acute cancer treatment. While cancer survivorship plans could be a vehicle for patients to receive information on how to mitigate financial toxicity, cancer survivorship plans have typically not dealt with the financial impact of cancer treatment or follow-up care. Embedding information into cancer survivorship plans on how to reduce or avoid financial toxicity presents an opportunity to address a highly prevalent patient need. Patient-centered qualitative studies are needed to assess the type, format, and level of detail of the information provided.