OBJECTIVE: Despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine regarding survivorship care plan (SCP) delivery to cancer patients, there have been few health service outcome evaluations thus far. METHODS:Gynecologic cancer survivors who were up to one-year post-treatment could participate in an evaluation assessing the health services provided and their perceptions of quality of care. A randomized, nested, cross-sectional design was used in a large group gynecologic oncology practice. Half (n=3) of the physicians were randomized to provide and discuss a SCP to patients during a follow-up visit, and the other half did not. Following their visits, all patients were informed that a health service evaluation of the practice was being conducted. Interested patients completed an anonymous 26-item survey assessing administrative, clinical, and educational health services, helpfulness of written materials, and perceptions of quality of care. RESULTS: Of the 121 survivors surveyed, 64 received SCPs and 57 were in the no-SCP condition. As a validity check, one question asked about educational materials received during the visit with an expected significant difference noted between conditions (X(2)=5.513, p=.019; more SCP patients reported receiving materials). However, there were no differences between conditions when patients rated health services (Fs>.37) or helpfulness of materials and perceptions of care (Fs>.19). CONCLUSIONS:Gynecologic oncology patients providing ratings of health services and satisfaction with care provided equivalent evaluations, regardless if they had/had not received a SCP from the physician. Thus, the need remains for further evaluations of SCPs if they are to be vehicles for improving health service outcomes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine regarding survivorship care plan (SCP) delivery to cancerpatients, there have been few health service outcome evaluations thus far. METHODS: Gynecologic cancer survivors who were up to one-year post-treatment could participate in an evaluation assessing the health services provided and their perceptions of quality of care. A randomized, nested, cross-sectional design was used in a large group gynecologic oncology practice. Half (n=3) of the physicians were randomized to provide and discuss a SCP to patients during a follow-up visit, and the other half did not. Following their visits, all patients were informed that a health service evaluation of the practice was being conducted. Interested patients completed an anonymous 26-item survey assessing administrative, clinical, and educational health services, helpfulness of written materials, and perceptions of quality of care. RESULTS: Of the 121 survivors surveyed, 64 received SCPs and 57 were in the no-SCP condition. As a validity check, one question asked about educational materials received during the visit with an expected significant difference noted between conditions (X(2)=5.513, p=.019; more SCP patients reported receiving materials). However, there were no differences between conditions when patients rated health services (Fs>.37) or helpfulness of materials and perceptions of care (Fs>.19). CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologic oncology patients providing ratings of health services and satisfaction with care provided equivalent evaluations, regardless if they had/had not received a SCP from the physician. Thus, the need remains for further evaluations of SCPs if they are to be vehicles for improving health service outcomes.
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: Kevin C Oeffinger; Melissa M Hudson; Ann C Mertens; Stephanie M Smith; Pauline A Mitby; Debra A Eshelman-Kent; Jennifer S Ford; Judith K Jones; Sharmila Kamani; Leslie L Robison Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Marci K Campbell; Irene Tessaro; Mindy Gellin; Carmina G Valle; Shannon Golden; Leanne Kaye; Patricia A Ganz; Mary S McCabe; Linda A Jacobs; Karen Syrjala; Barbara Anderson; Alison F Jones; Kenneth Miller Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 4.442
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: Belle H de Rooij; Elyse R Park; Giselle K Perez; Julia Rabin; Katharine M Quain; Don S Dizon; Kathryn E Post; Garrett M Chinn; Allison L McDonough; Rachel B Jimenez; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Jeffrey Peppercorn Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-05-08
Authors: Sarah A Birken; Alecia S Clary; Shampa Bernstein; Jamiyla Bolton; Miriam Tardif-Douglin; Deborah K Mayer; Allison M Deal; Sara R Jacobs Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Sarah A Birken; Sarah Raskin; Yuqing Zhang; Gema Lane; Alexandra Zizzi; Mandi Pratt-Chapman Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Steven C Palmer; Carrie Tompkins Stricker; SarahLena L Panzer; Sarah A Arvey; K Scott Baker; Jackie Casillas; Patricia A Ganz; Mary S McCabe; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Linda Overholser; Ann H Partridge; Betsy Risendal; Donald L Rosenstein; Karen L Syrjala; Linda A Jacobs Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.840
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
Authors: Amye J Tevaarwerk; Jennifer R Klemp; Gijsberta J van Londen; Bradford W Hesse; Mary E Sesto Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 6.860