Barriers in providing breast and colorectal cancer survivorship care: Perceptions of U.S. primary care physicians (PCPs) and medical oncologists (MOs).

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. CRA9006-CRA9006 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. S. Virgo ◽  
C. C. Lerro ◽  
C. N. Klabunde ◽  
C. Earle ◽  
P. A. Ganz

CRA9006 Background: Increased coordination among clinicians in cancer survivorship care is needed yet the literature suggests barriers remain due to a fragmented healthcare system. This is the first nationwide study of barriers PCPs and MOs perceive regarding breast and colorectal cancer survivorship care. Methods: The Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors (SPARCCS) was mailed to a nationally representative stratified sample (N=5,275) of eligible American Medical Association member PCPs and MOs (N=3,596) providing care to cancer survivors, to permit comparisons of views regarding follow-up testing, roles, knowledge self-confidence, and perceived barriers. We analyzed physician-based barriers using weighted multinomial logistic regression models adjusted for physician demographics, reimbursement, training, and practice characteristics. Results: 2,202 physicians (1,072 PCPs and 1,130 MOs) responded (57.6% response rate; 65.1% cooperation rate). In weighted univariate analyses, PCPs were significantly more likely to report often/always ordering tests or treatments as malpractice protection, being concerned about missed care, and lacking adequate training to manage patient problems. MOs were more likely to report (often/always and sometimes) concerns about duplicated care and about which physician provides general preventive health care. In multivariate regression models, physician specialty remained significant for 3 of 5 physician-based barriers. MOs were less likely to report inadequate training (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.22-0.49), less likely to often/always order extra tests due to malpractice concerns (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34-0.84), and more likely to report being often/always (OR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.13-3.43) and sometimes (OR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.60-2.93) uncertain who is providing general preventive care, compared to PCPs. Conclusions: MOs perceived different physician-based barriers as problematic in cancer follow-up care compared to PCPs. Alleviation of inadequate training, malpractice-driven test ordering, and preventive care delivery barriers may require education and provision of survivorship care plans.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e22522-e22522
Author(s):  
Jared David Acoba ◽  
Sharon Tamashiro ◽  
Marci Chock

e22522 Background: Numerous studies have evaluated the impact of cancer survivorship care. However, no study to date has focused on Asian or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NH/PI) cancer survivors. It has been well documented that Asian and NH/PI patients often suffer from inferior cancer outcomes compared to White patients, and differences in their experience with cancer survivorship care could contribute to this disparity. Methods: Surveys were sent to 1410 cancer survivors who were treated at a community cancer center with curative intent and who had received survivorship care plans between Jan 2014 and June 2018. The 26-item questionnaire evaluated patients’ perception of various aspects of their survivorship care plan and follow-up physician visits. All responses were anonymous. Results: Of the 360 patients who responded, 24% were White, 54% Asian, and 13% NH/PI. Compared to Whites, Asian and NH/PI patients were younger (p = 0.004), less educated (p = 0.004), and reported a lower income (p < 0.0005). Among all patients, 62% reported that the survivorship care plan was “very helpful” and 86% rated their satisfaction with physician follow-up visits as “very good” to “excellent.” There were no racial differences in satisfaction with either survivorship care plan or physician follow-up. In a multivariate binary logistic regression, Asians and NH/PI patients were significantly more likely to rate ongoing survivorship care as helpful compared to Whites, OR 4.08 (95%CI, 2.13-7.82). Conclusions: There were no racial differences in patient satisfaction with their survivorship care plans and follow-up care. However, Asian and NH/PI patients valued ongoing cancer survivorship care follow-up significantly more than White patients. Whether more extensive survivorship care would lead to improved outcomes among Asian and NH/PI cancer patients should be investigated further.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6006-6006
Author(s):  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
Anne Michelle Noone ◽  
Noreen Aziz ◽  
Julia Howe Rowland ◽  
Arnold L. Potosky ◽  
...  

6006 Background: There is increasing interest in developing more efficient and effective strategies for coordinating and delivering cancer and non-cancer related follow-up care to survivors. The objectives of this nationwide survey were to describe and compare US physician preferences for different cancer survivorship care models. Methods: The Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors (SPARCCS) was mailed to PCPs and oncologists in order to evaluate their views regarding physician responsibilities, knowledge levels about survivorship, and cancer follow-up testing. Using weighted univariate and multivariate models, we analyzed PCPs’ and oncologists’ preferences for different cancer survivorship care models (PCP/shared vs. oncologist vs. non-physician provider) and examined how physician attitudes towards and self-efficacy with their own skills during breast and colorectal cancer follow-up affected these preferences. Results: Of 3,434 physicians surveyed, 2,202 (64%) responded of whom 2,026 (59%) provided eligible outcomes for this study: 938 (46%) PCPs and 1,088 (54%) oncologists. In unadjusted analyses, most PCPs (51%) supported a PCP/shared care system whereas the majority of specialists (59%) strongly endorsed an oncologist-based model (p<0.001). A number of PCPs and oncologists (23% for both) preferred to involve non-physician providers. A significant proportion of cancer specialists (87%) did not feel that PCPs can take on the primary role for cancer follow-up. Many PCPs believed that they have the skills to perform breast and colorectal cancer follow-up (57%), detect recurrent cancers (74%), and offer psychosocial support (50%), but only a minority (32%) were willing to assume exclusive responsibility. In adjusted analyses, PCPs already involved with cancer surveillance (43%) were more likely to prefer a PCP/shared care system than an oncologist-based survivorship care model (OR 2.08, 95%CI 1.34-3.23, p<0.001). Conclusions: PCPs and oncologists have different preferences for models of cancer survivorship care. Prior involvement with cancer follow-up was one of the strongest predictors of PCPs' willingness to assume this responsibility.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (18) ◽  
pp. 2322-2336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine S. Virgo ◽  
Catherine C. Lerro ◽  
Carrie N. Klabunde ◽  
Craig Earle ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz

Purpose High-quality, well-coordinated cancer survivorship care is needed yet barriers remain owing to fragmentation in the United States health care system. This article is a nationwide survey of barriers perceived by primary care physicians (PCPs) and medical oncologists (MOs) regarding breast and colorectal cancer survivorship care beyond 5 years after treatment. Methods The Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors was mailed out in 2009 to a nationally-representative sample (n = 3,596) of US PCPs and MOs. Ten physician-perceived cancer survivorship care barriers/concerns were compared between the two provider types. Using weighted multinomial logistic regression, we modeled each barrier, adjusting for physician demographics, reimbursement, training, and practice characteristics. Results We received responses from 2,202 physicians (1,072 PCPs; 1,130 MOs; 65.1% cooperation rate). In adjusted patient-related barriers models, MOs were more likely than PCPs to report patient language barriers (odds ratio, [OR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.42), insurance restrictions impeding test/treatment use (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.96), and patients requesting more aggressive testing (OR, 4.08; 95% CI, 2.73 to 6.10). In adjusted physician-related barriers models, PCPs were more likely to report inadequate training (OR, 3.06; 95% CI, 2.03 to 4.61) and ordering additional tests/treatments because of malpractice concerns (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.93). MOs were more likely to report uncertainty regarding general preventive care responsibility (often/always: OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.13 to 3.43; sometimes: OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.60 to 2.93). Conclusion MOs and PCPs perceive different cancer follow-up care barriers/concerns to be problematic. Resolving inadequate training, malpractice-driven test ordering, and preventive-care responsibility concerns may require continuing education, explicit guidelines, and survivorship care plans. Reviewing care plans with survivors may also reduce patients' requests for unnecessary testing.


2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 266-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian L. Sprague ◽  
Kim L. Dittus ◽  
Claire M. Pace ◽  
Dorothy Dulko ◽  
Lori A. Pollack ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 13-13
Author(s):  
Alaina Chodoff ◽  
Katherine Clegg Smith ◽  
Aishwarya Shukla ◽  
Amanda L. Blackford ◽  
Nita Ahuja ◽  
...  

13 Background: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) outline pertinent information about a cancer survivor’s treatment and follow-up care. We describe the content of colorectal cancer (CRC) SCPs, completed as part of a randomized controlled trial of SCPs, and evaluate whether follow-up recommendations are guideline concordant. Methods: We analyzed 74 CRC SCPs from an academic and community cancer center. Frequency distributions and descriptive statistics were calculated for the entire cohort and separately by recruiting site. Follow-up recommendations were compared to American Cancer Society (ACS), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (Table). Results: Content routinely provided in SCPs (>80%) included patient demographics, cancer diagnosis, treatment details (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy) as well as treatment-related side effects. SCP content specified less frequently included cancer stage, cancer risk (predisposing conditions), and recommendations for genetic counseling/testing and health promotion. Nearly all SCPs from the community site provided uniform, guideline-concordant follow-up. At the academic site, on average, more than 15 follow-up recommendations were listed for each surveillance modality, except colonoscopy. Among the SCPs that specified the frequency of follow-up care, the rate of guideline-concordant recommendations was 15/42 (36%) for follow-up visits, 29/43 (67%) for imaging, 12/45 (27%) for laboratory and 39/39 (100%) for colonoscopy. Conclusions: SCPs consistently provided information about CRC diagnosis and treatment, but often omitted information about cancer risk, staging and prognosis. There was considerable variation between cancer centers in the follow-up recommendations suggested for CRC survivors. Future work to improve the consistency of SCP follow-up recommendations with guidelines may be needed. Clinical trial information: NCT03035773 . [Table: see text]


10.2196/23414 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e23414
Author(s):  
Akshat Kapoor ◽  
Priya Nambisan

Background Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer among American women, accounting for 23% of all cancer survivors nationally. Yet, the availability of adequate resources and tools for supporting breast cancer survivors has not kept up with the rapid advancement in treatment options, resulting in unmet supportive care needs, particularly among low-income and minority populations. This study explores an alternative means of delivering breast cancer survivorship care plans (SCPs), with the aim of improving survivor morbidity, patient knowledge, and self-management of treatment-related symptoms, as well as addressing inconsistencies in follow-up care visits. Objective The overall goal of this study is to improve the uptake of SCP recommendations via an educational intervention for breast cancer survivors, to improve treatment-related morbidity, patient knowledge, self-management, and adherence to follow-up visits. The specific aims of the study are to (1) evaluate the feasibility of the online SCP, and (2) assess the impact of the online SCP on survivorship outcomes. Methods We will enroll 50 breast cancer survivors who have completed initial breast cancer treatment into a 2-armed, randomized, waitlist-controlled pilot trial, and collect data at baseline and 6 months. For the first aim, we will use mixed methods, including surveys and personal interviews among the intervention group, to determine the feasibility of providing an online, interactive SCP (called ACESO) based on the survivors’ online user experience and their short-term adoption. For the secondary aim, we will compare the 2 groups to assess the primary outcomes of survivor knowledge, self-efficacy for self-management, perceived peer support, and adherence to SCP-recommended posttreatment follow-up visits to oncology and primary care; and the secondary outcomes of treatment-related morbidity (body weight, fatigue, depression, anxiety, sexual function, distress, and sleep quality). We assess these outcomes by using measurements from validated instruments with robust psychometric properties. Results We have developed and refined the online breast cancer survivorship plan, ACESO, with consultation from breast cancer oncologists, nurses, and survivors. Approval for the study protocol has been obtained from the Institutional Review Board. An advisory board has also been established to provide oversight and recommendations on the conduct of the study. The study will be completed over a period of 2 years. Conclusions The results of this pilot study will inform the feasibility and design of a larger-scale pragmatic trial to evaluate the impact of an online breast cancer SCP on treatment-related morbidity and self-efficacy for self-management. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/23414


2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl Baravelli ◽  
Meinir Krishnasamy ◽  
Carmel Pezaro ◽  
Penelope Schofield ◽  
Kerryann Lotfi-Jam ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Alaina Chodoff ◽  
Katherine C. Smith ◽  
Aishwarya Shukla ◽  
Amanda L. Blackford ◽  
Nita Ahuja ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2958-2958
Author(s):  
Haleh Kadkhoda ◽  
Clare Karten ◽  
Emily Van Laar ◽  
Elisa Weiss ◽  
Kevin C. Oeffinger ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Many cancer patients are cured, or have a series of remissions interspersed with periods of re-treatment. In 2006, the Institute of Medicine's From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition recommended comprehensive treatment summaries and follow-up care plans for all cancer survivors. [Parry 2013] There were about 14 million cancer survivors in the US as of January 2012; this population is expected to be 18 million by 2022. [Siegel 2012] Among survivors, 64% have survived 5 years or more; 40% have survived 10 years or more; and 15% have survived 20 years or more after diagnosis. [de Moor 2013] Many survivors in this growing population experience physical, psychological, and/or financial long-term/ late effects. The complexities of managing cancer survivors suggest their care should not be conceived as a transition from the hematologist/oncologist to the primary care provider, but rather as an ongoing, flexible collaboration determined by individual survivor needs. Methods Polling surveys were conducted within the 2012 online education activity Sharing Care for Survivors of Hematologic Malignancies, developed by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and Medscape Oncology. Case-based education was delivered by an expert panel of hematologist/oncologists (Hem/Oncs) and primary care physicians (PCPs) to illustrate effective communication methods and critical communication points between (Hem/Oncs) and (PCPs). Results As of June 30, 116 Hem/Oncs and 171 PCPs overall responded to the polling surveys, which address current practices and barriers in shared care of cancer survivors. Responses were analyzed to identify gaps in continuity of care among specialties. A summary of responses shows the most significant barrier in effective management is the lack of survivorship care plans and treatment summaries (41% Hem/Oncs vs 51% PCPs). Only 8% and 5% of Hem/Oncs and PCPs, respectively, use survivorship care plans, although both Hem/Oncs and PCPs agreed that such plans and summaries are the most useful communication vehicle among professionals (73% Hem/Oncs vs 67% PCPs). PCPs used patient self-reported data more frequently to document cancer treatment, compared with Hem/Oncs (21% vs 7%, respectively); Hem/Oncs used caregiver reports more often than did PCPs (12% vs 3%, respectively). Similar numbers of Hem/Oncs and PCPs estimated that PCPs spend more than 4 hours of non-reimbursed time weekly researching issues related to patient care (47% Hem/Oncs vs 41% PCPs). Despite progress in electronic health records and widespread Internet access, these physicians most typically use the phone to communicate about the management of cancer survivors (64% Hem/Oncs vs 74% PCPs), followed by faxed/mailed letters, with email ranking as least used. Lack of prompt communication between Hem/Oncs and PCPs was the second highest barrier listed by respondents to effective management (22% and 27%, respectively). Conclusion Analysis of the Hem/Onc and PCP learner responses to the polling surveys point to clinical complexities and persistent challenges in the co-management of survivors of hematologic cancers. The challenges relate to communication, technological, healthcare system and healthcare coverage issues.Timely, ongoing communication of the right clinical information between Hem/Oncs and PCPs is essential for optimal management of the growing number of cancer survivors. Hem/Oncs and PCPs devote significant time each week to addressing the cancer survivors' needs; the lack of reimbursed time for PCPs may be an impediment to optimal care. Hem/Oncs and PCPs place a high value on the utility of survivorship care plans; however, they are not widely used. Phone calls are the current preferred communication mode. Until other technological solutions are more widely used to share clinical information, it is important to employ practical solutions, such as providing PCPs with information to help prioritize cancer survivors' follow-up care needs and providing patients/caregivers with brief cancer treatment summaries. Communication strategies to address potentially preventable causes of death, such as cardiac disease and second cancers, as well as acknowledgment and treatment for anxiety and depression related issues [Harrington 2010], which often accompany the uncertainty many cancer survivors live with, are critical. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document