Simplifying survivorship care planning: A randomized controlled trial comparing three care plan delivery approaches.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12024-12024
Author(s):  
Claire Frances Snyder ◽  
Youngjee Choi ◽  
Amanda L. Blackford ◽  
Jennifer DeSanto ◽  
Nancy Mayonado ◽  
...  

12024 Background: Survivorship care plans (“plans”) have been promoted to smooth the transition from active cancer treatment to survivorship. However, the time and resources involved in plan completion and delivery have been barriers to implementation. This randomized controlled trial aimed to identify the simplest, most effective approach for implementing survivorship care planning. Methods: Stage 1-3 breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients aged 21+ who were completing acute treatment were recruited from one urban-academic and one rural-community cancer center. Participants were randomized, stratified by recruitment site and cancer type, 1:1:1 to (a) mailed plan (“mail”), (b) plan delivered during one-time transition visit (“one-visit”), or (c) plan delivered during transition visit plus a 6-month follow-up visit (“two-visit”). Health service use (visits, tests/procedures, non-oral medications) was collected from participants and medical records for 18 months and compared to the plan recommendations. Logistic regression, adjusting for cancer type and recruitment site, was used to evaluate the primary outcome of adherence to recommendations for all health service use categories by intervention arm. Descriptive analyses compared care receipt for each health service use category separately (i.e., visits, tests/procedures, non-oral medications). Results: Of 378 participants randomized (n = 126 mail; n = 125 one-visit; n = 127 two-visit), 316 (84%) were analyzable for the primary outcome (n = 107 mail; n = 105 one-visit; n = 104 two-visit): 164 (52%) recruited from the urban-academic and 152 (48%) from the rural-community site; 137 (43%) breast, 112 (35%) prostate, 67 (21%) colorectal cancer; mean age 62 years. For the primary outcome, there was no difference across arms in the proportion of participants who received all plan-recommended care: 45.2% mail, 50.5% one-visit, 42.7% two-visit (p = 0.60). We did not find significant interactions by recruitment site or cancer type. There were also no differences in receipt of recommended care by category of health service use. The proportion of participants who had the recommended number of visits was 53.4% mail, 54.8% one-visit, 53.7% two-visit (p = 0.99). The proportion undergoing recommended tests/procedures was 78.8% mail, 77.2% one-visit, 73.0% two-visit (p = 0.62). The proportion receiving recommended non-oral medications was 66.7% mail, 75.0% one-visit, 73.7% two-visit (p = 0.87). Conclusions: This study found no significant difference in receipt of recommended follow-up care by plan delivery approach. Across study arms, survivors were more likely to receive recommended tests/procedures and non-oral medications but less likely to have the recommended number of visits. Feasibility and other factors may determine the best survivorship care planning approach. Clinical trial information: NCT03035773.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 84-84
Author(s):  
Elliott Tolbert ◽  
Janice Bowie ◽  
Claire Frances Snyder ◽  
Barraw Makia ◽  
Katherine Clegg Smith

84 Background: The Institute of Medicine recommends that all cancer patients receive a survivorship care plan to help alleviate challenges faced when transitioning from acute treatment to long-term survivorship. As nearly three million Americans act as caregivers for a loved one with cancer, it is important that the survivorship care planning process consider the needs of not only the survivor, but also caregivers. Methods: In preparation for a randomized controlled trial of survivorship care planning, we conducted four focus groups with adult survivors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer (n = 28) and two with self-identified caregivers of people who had been treated for these three cancers (n = 20). Focus group participants were recruited from a large, urban academic medical center and a rural community cancer center. Discussions focused on needs and expectations during the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship. Each discussion was recorded, transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively. Data analysis also included review of findings by an advisory board of patients and caregivers. Results: Six themes emerged, some raised by both survivors and caregivers, and some only by caregivers. The need for information on side effects and follow-up care recommendations, confusion regarding the role each provider plays once treatment is complete, and the need for resources and support to help deal with issues such as physical and emotional distress and living a healthy lifestyle were brought up by both caregivers and survivors. In addition, caregivers discussed uncertainty about their role as a caregiver, their own mental and emotional health needs, and the idea that adjusting to ‘a new normal’ is not just for the patient, but also caregivers. Conclusions: Caregivers have distinct needs in addition to those of the patient. These caregiver concerns may need to be addressed during the survivorship care planning process. Based on these findings, we are including a caregiver-specific resource in our survivorship care planning randomized controlled trial.


JMIR Cancer ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. e12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Clegg Smith ◽  
Elliott Tolbert ◽  
Susan M Hannum ◽  
Archana Radhakrishnan ◽  
Kelsey Zorn ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina B. Gee ◽  
Gagan S. Khera ◽  
Alyssa T. Poblete ◽  
Barunie Kim ◽  
Syeda Y. Buchwach

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document