PURPOSE: As the number of breast cancer survivors increases, a durable model of comprehensive survivor care is needed, incorporating providers and/or visit types both within and outside of oncology. The objective of this study was to explore survivors' comfort with different clinician types or with a telephone/Internet-based virtual visit as components of survivorship care. METHODS: Breast cancer survivors participating in a general survivorship survey completed an additional breast cancer-specific questionnaire evaluating the self-perceived impact of follow-up visits to various clinician types, or follow-up by a virtual visit, on survival, worrying, and stress related to cancer. RESULTS: A total of 218 breast cancer survivors completed the questionnaire. Most favored medical oncologist follow-up visits over those with primary care physicians (PCPs) or nurse practitioners (NPs) in terms of reduced worrying about cancer (odds ratio [OR], 2.21; P < .001), reduced stress around the visit (OR, 1.40; P = .002), and improved effect on cancer survival (OR, 2.38; P < .001). However, the majority also displayed substantial comfort with both PCPs and NPs in the same domains. Patients rated a virtual visit as having a less favorable impact on cancer survival and cancer-related worrying compared with in-person visits with clinicians. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer survivors are comfortable with both PCPs and NPs providing follow-up care, although they indicate a preference for medical oncologists. Given patients' negative impressions of a virtual visit, increased familiarity with and research investigating this emerging concept are needed. The NP-led survivorship clinic model, with increased guidance for PCPs, offers a promising route for improving quality of and satisfaction with survivor care.
PURPOSE: As the number of breast cancer survivors increases, a durable model of comprehensive survivor care is needed, incorporating providers and/or visit types both within and outside of oncology. The objective of this study was to explore survivors' comfort with different clinician types or with a telephone/Internet-based virtual visit as components of survivorship care. METHODS:Breast cancer survivors participating in a general survivorship survey completed an additional breast cancer-specific questionnaire evaluating the self-perceived impact of follow-up visits to various clinician types, or follow-up by a virtual visit, on survival, worrying, and stress related to cancer. RESULTS: A total of 218 breast cancer survivors completed the questionnaire. Most favored medical oncologist follow-up visits over those with primary care physicians (PCPs) or nurse practitioners (NPs) in terms of reduced worrying about cancer (odds ratio [OR], 2.21; P < .001), reduced stress around the visit (OR, 1.40; P = .002), and improved effect on cancer survival (OR, 2.38; P < .001). However, the majority also displayed substantial comfort with both PCPs and NPs in the same domains. Patients rated a virtual visit as having a less favorable impact on cancer survival and cancer-related worrying compared with in-person visits with clinicians. CONCLUSION:Breast cancer survivors are comfortable with both PCPs and NPs providing follow-up care, although they indicate a preference for medical oncologists. Given patients' negative impressions of a virtual visit, increased familiarity with and research investigating this emerging concept are needed. The NP-led survivorship clinic model, with increased guidance for PCPs, offers a promising route for improving quality of and satisfaction with survivor care.
Authors: E Grunfeld; R Fitzpatrick; D Mant; P Yudkin; R Adewuyi-Dalton; J Stewart; D Cole; M Vessey Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Niraj J Gusani; Jane R Schubart; James Wise; Elana Farace; Michael J Green; Yixing Jiang; Eric T Kimchi; Kevin F Staveley-O'Carroll Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Elliott J Goytia; David W Lounsbury; Mary S McCabe; Elisa Weiss; Meghan Newcomer; Deena J Nelson; Debra Brennessel; Bruce D Rapkin; M Margaret Kemeny Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Winson Y Cheung; Bridget A Neville; Danielle B Cameron; E Francis Cook; Craig C Earle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christine E Hill-Kayser; Carolyn Vachani; Margaret K Hampshire; Linda A Jacobs; James M Metz Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2009-09-04 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Dawn Stacey; Esther Green; Barbara Ballantyne; Myriam Skrutkowski; Angela Whynot; Lucie Tardif; Joy Tarasuk; Meg Carley Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: J Y Y Kwan; J Croke; T Panzarella; K Ubhi; A Fyles; A Koch; R Dinniwell; W Levin; D McCready; C Chung; F Liu; J L Bender Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Crystal S Denlinger; Robert W Carlson; Madhuri Are; K Scott Baker; Elizabeth Davis; Stephen B Edge; Debra L Friedman; Mindy Goldman; Lee Jones; Allison King; Elizabeth Kvale; Terry S Langbaum; Jennifer A Ligibel; Mary S McCabe; Kevin T McVary; Michelle Melisko; Jose G Montoya; Kathi Mooney; Mary Ann Morgan; Tracey O'Connor; Electra D Paskett; Muhammad Raza; Karen L Syrjala; Susan G Urba; Mark T Wakabayashi; Phyllis Zee; Nicole McMillian; Deborah Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Shaylyn S Stark; Loki Natarajan; Diana Chingos; Jennifer Ehren; Jessica R Gorman; Michael Krychman; Brian Kwan; Jun J Mao; Emily Myers; Tom Walpole; John P Pierce; H Irene Su Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: H Irene Su; Shaylyn Stark; Brian Kwan; Sarah Boles; Diana Chingos; Jennifer Ehren; Jessica R Gorman; Michael Krychman; Sally A D Romero; Jun J Mao; John P Pierce; Loki Natarajan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 4.872