PURPOSE: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are tools used to assist in the transition from treatment to surveillance cancer care. However, few studies have investigated survivor and provider preferences regarding SCPs. Our purpose was to explore survivor and primary care provider preferences regarding content, format, and delivery of SCPs. METHODS: Focus groups and provider interviews were performed in 2010. Five different templates were presented to study participants for their feedback. Each SCP included a treatment summary, surveillance schedule, and care plan for the same fictitious patient. Sessions were transcribed, and field notes taken. RESULTS: Four focus groups (n = 29 survivors) and five primary care providers participated. No cancer survivors had ever received a written SCP. We found clear preferences for the Journey Forward format (with some modifications) and face-to-face delivery (print or electronic) to the survivor by his or her oncologist just before or soon after completion of treatment. Primary care providers preferred an abbreviated version. CONCLUSION: Written SCPs were endorsed by all patients and primary care providers as helpful communication tools. However, if used alone, the SCP would be insufficient to ease the transition to follow-up care. Improved communication and care coordination were identified as important for survivorship care that went beyond what this document might provide.
PURPOSE: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are tools used to assist in the transition from treatment to surveillance cancer care. However, few studies have investigated survivor and provider preferences regarding SCPs. Our purpose was to explore survivor and primary care provider preferences regarding content, format, and delivery of SCPs. METHODS: Focus groups and provider interviews were performed in 2010. Five different templates were presented to study participants for their feedback. Each SCP included a treatment summary, surveillance schedule, and care plan for the same fictitious patient. Sessions were transcribed, and field notes taken. RESULTS: Four focus groups (n = 29 survivors) and five primary care providers participated. No cancer survivors had ever received a written SCP. We found clear preferences for the Journey Forward format (with some modifications) and face-to-face delivery (print or electronic) to the survivor by his or her oncologist just before or soon after completion of treatment. Primary care providers preferred an abbreviated version. CONCLUSION: Written SCPs were endorsed by all patients and primary care providers as helpful communication tools. However, if used alone, the SCP would be insufficient to ease the transition to follow-up care. Improved communication and care coordination were identified as important for survivorship care that went beyond what this document might provide.
Authors: Linda A Jacobs; Steven C Palmer; Lisa A Schwartz; Angela DeMichele; Jun J Mao; Joseph Carver; Clarisa Gracia; Christine E Hill-Kayser; James M Metz; Margaret K Hampshire; Carolyn Vachani; Donna Pucci; Anna T Meadows Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Arnold L Potosky; Paul K J Han; Julia Rowland; Carrie N Klabunde; Tenbroeck Smith; Noreen Aziz; Craig Earle; John Z Ayanian; Patricia A Ganz; Michael Stefanek Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-07-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; David Haggstrom; Tracy Jacobs; Ada Determan; Jennifer Granger; Wanda Montalvo; William M Snyder; Susan Lockhart; Ahmed Calvo Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 2.983
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: Laura P Forsythe; Carla Parry; Catherine M Alfano; Erin E Kent; Corinne R Leach; David A Haggstrom; Patricia A Ganz; Noreen Aziz; Julia H Rowland Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Carol A Rosenberg; Carol Flanagan; Bruce Brockstein; Jennifer C Obel; Leon H Dragon; Douglas E Merkel; Elaine L Wade; Teresa M Law; Janardan D Khandekar; Thomas A Hensing Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Deborah K Mayer; Adrian Gerstel; Annmarie Lee Walton; Tammy Triglianos; Teresa E Sadiq; Nikki A Hawkins; Janine M Davies Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: G J van Londen; Heidi S Donovan; Ellen B Beckjord; Alexandra L Cardy; Dana H Bovbjerg; Nancy E Davidson; Jennifer Q Morse; Galen E Switzer; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Mary Amanda Dew Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: SarahMaria Donohue; Mary E Sesto; David L Hahn; Kevin A Buhr; Elizabeth A Jacobs; James M Sosman; Molly J Andreason; Douglas A Wiegmann; Amye J Tevaarwerk Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Carla Parry; Ellen Beckjord; Richard P Moser; Sana N Vieux; Lynne S Padgett; Bradford W Hesse Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Talya Salz; Mary S McCabe; Erin E Onstad; Shrujal S Baxi; Richard L Deming; Regina A Franco; Lyn A Glenn; Gregory R Harper; Alcee J Jumonville; Roxanne M Payne; Elissa A Peters; Andrew L Salner; John M Schallenkamp; Sheron R Williams; Kevin Yiee; Kevin C Oeffinger Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 6.860