PURPOSE: New strategies for delivering cancer follow-up care are needed. We surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists to assess how physician attitudes toward and self-efficacy with cancer follow-up affect preferences for different cancer survivorship models. METHODS: The survey of physician attitudes regarding the care of cancer survivors was mailed to a randomly selected national sample of PCPs and oncologists to evaluate their perspectives regarding physician roles, knowledge about survivorship care processes, and views on cancer surveillance. Multinomial logistic regression models were constructed to examine how physician attitudes towards, and self-efficacy with, their own skills affected preferences for different cancer survivorship care models. RESULTS: Of 3,434 physicians identified, a total of 2,026 participants provided eligible responses: 938 PCPs and 1,088 oncologists. Most PCPs (51 %) supported a PCP/shared care model; whereas, the majority of specialists (59 %) strongly endorsed an oncologist-based model (p < 0.001). Less than a quarter of PCPs and oncologists preferred specialized survivor clinics. A significant proportion of oncologists (87 %) did not feel that PCPs should take on the primary role of cancer follow-up. Most PCPs believed that they were better able to perform breast and colorectal cancer follow-up (57 %), detect recurrent cancers (74 %), and offer psychosocial support (50 %), but only a minority (32 %) was willing to assume primary responsibility. PCPs already involved with cancer surveillance (43 %) were more likely to prefer a PCP/shared care than oncologist-based survivorship model (OR, 2.08; 95 % CI, 1.34-3.23). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: PCPs and oncologists have different preferences for models of cancer survivorship care. Prior involvement with cancer surveillance was one of the strongest predictors of PCPs' willingness to assume this responsibility.
PURPOSE: New strategies for delivering cancer follow-up care are needed. We surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists to assess how physician attitudes toward and self-efficacy with cancer follow-up affect preferences for different cancer survivorship models. METHODS: The survey of physician attitudes regarding the care of cancer survivors was mailed to a randomly selected national sample of PCPs and oncologists to evaluate their perspectives regarding physician roles, knowledge about survivorship care processes, and views on cancer surveillance. Multinomial logistic regression models were constructed to examine how physician attitudes towards, and self-efficacy with, their own skills affected preferences for different cancer survivorship care models. RESULTS: Of 3,434 physicians identified, a total of 2,026 participants provided eligible responses: 938 PCPs and 1,088 oncologists. Most PCPs (51 %) supported a PCP/shared care model; whereas, the majority of specialists (59 %) strongly endorsed an oncologist-based model (p < 0.001). Less than a quarter of PCPs and oncologists preferred specialized survivor clinics. A significant proportion of oncologists (87 %) did not feel that PCPs should take on the primary role of cancer follow-up. Most PCPs believed that they were better able to perform breast and colorectal cancer follow-up (57 %), detect recurrent cancers (74 %), and offer psychosocial support (50 %), but only a minority (32 %) was willing to assume primary responsibility. PCPs already involved with cancer surveillance (43 %) were more likely to prefer a PCP/shared care than oncologist-based survivorship model (OR, 2.08; 95 % CI, 1.34-3.23). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: PCPs and oncologists have different preferences for models of cancer survivorship care. Prior involvement with cancer surveillance was one of the strongest predictors of PCPs' willingness to assume this responsibility.
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: Carla Parry; Erin E Kent; Angela B Mariotto; Catherine M Alfano; Julia H Rowland Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.254
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: Tenbroeck G Smith; Sara Strollo; Xin Hu; Craig C Earle; Corinne R Leach; Larissa Nekhlyudov Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Denalee O'Malley; Shawna V Hudson; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Jenna Howard; Ellen Rubinstein; Heather S Lee; Linda S Overholser; Amy Shaw; Sarah Givens; Jay S Burton; Eva Grunfeld; Carly Parry; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: C Kendell; K M Decker; P A Groome; M L McBride; L Jiang; M K Krzyzanowska; G Porter; D Turner; R Urquhart; M Winget; E Grunfeld Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Christina Signorelli; Claire E Wakefield; Joanna E Fardell; Tali Foreman; Karen A Johnston; Jon Emery; Elysia Thornton-Benko; Afaf Girgis; Hanne C Lie; Richard J Cohn Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-08-31
Authors: Heather B Neuman; Nicole M Steffens; Nora Jacobson; Amye Tevaarwerk; Bethany Anderson; Lee G Wilke; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Jennifer DeSalvo; Dori Klemanski; Christian Stephens; Anne M Noonan; Seuli Brill; Maryam B Lustberg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Judith A Meiklejohn; Alexander Mimery; Jennifer H Martin; Ross Bailie; Gail Garvey; Euan T Walpole; Jon Adams; Daniel Williamson; Patricia C Valery Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 4.442