PURPOSE: Previous studies have merely investigated oncology providers' a priori attitudes toward SCPs. The purpose of the current study was to longitudinally evaluate oncology providers' expectations and actual experiences with the use of an automatically generated Survivorship Care Plan (SCP) in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Between April 2011 and October 2012, the participating oncology providers (i.e., gynecologists, gynecologic oncologists, oncology nurses) provided usual care or SCP care to 222 endometrial and 85 ovarian cancer patients included in the Registrationsystem Oncological GYnecology (ROGY) Care trial. All (n = 43) oncology providers in both arms were requested to complete a questionnaire before and after patient inclusion regarding their expectations and evaluation of SCP care. RESULTS: Before patient inclusion, 38 (88%; 21 SCP, 17 usual care), and after patient inclusion, 35 (83%; 20 SCP, 15 usual care) oncology providers returned the questionnaire. After patient inclusion, oncology providers were generally satisfied with the SCP (M = 7.1, SD = 1.3, with 1 = not at all-10 = very much) and motivated to keep using the SCP (M = 7.9, SD = 1.5). Most providers (64%) encountered barriers. Twenty-five percent felt they used more time for consultations (M = 7.3 min, SD = 4.6). However, self-reported consultation time did not differ between before (M = 21.8 min, SD = 11.6) and after patient inclusion (M = 18.7, SD = 10.6; p = 0.22) or between SCP care (M = 18.5, SD = 10.3) and usual care (M = 22.0, SD = 12.2; p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Oncology providers using the SCP were generally satisfied and motivated to keep using the SCP. However, the findings of the current study suggest that even when the SCP can be generated automatically, oncology providers still have difficulties with finding the time to discuss the SCP with their patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: If SCP care is indeed effective, overcoming the perceived barriers is needed before large-scale implementation in order for cancer survivors to fully benefit from the potential advantages of SCPs.
PURPOSE: Previous studies have merely investigated oncology providers' a priori attitudes toward SCPs. The purpose of the current study was to longitudinally evaluate oncology providers' expectations and actual experiences with the use of an automatically generated Survivorship Care Plan (SCP) in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Between April 2011 and October 2012, the participating oncology providers (i.e., gynecologists, gynecologic oncologists, oncology nurses) provided usual care or SCP care to 222 endometrial and 85 ovarian cancerpatients included in the Registrationsystem Oncological GYnecology (ROGY) Care trial. All (n = 43) oncology providers in both arms were requested to complete a questionnaire before and after patient inclusion regarding their expectations and evaluation of SCP care. RESULTS: Before patient inclusion, 38 (88%; 21 SCP, 17 usual care), and after patient inclusion, 35 (83%; 20 SCP, 15 usual care) oncology providers returned the questionnaire. After patient inclusion, oncology providers were generally satisfied with the SCP (M = 7.1, SD = 1.3, with 1 = not at all-10 = very much) and motivated to keep using the SCP (M = 7.9, SD = 1.5). Most providers (64%) encountered barriers. Twenty-five percent felt they used more time for consultations (M = 7.3 min, SD = 4.6). However, self-reported consultation time did not differ between before (M = 21.8 min, SD = 11.6) and after patient inclusion (M = 18.7, SD = 10.6; p = 0.22) or between SCP care (M = 18.5, SD = 10.3) and usual care (M = 22.0, SD = 12.2; p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Oncology providers using the SCP were generally satisfied and motivated to keep using the SCP. However, the findings of the current study suggest that even when the SCP can be generated automatically, oncology providers still have difficulties with finding the time to discuss the SCP with their patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: If SCP care is indeed effective, overcoming the perceived barriers is needed before large-scale implementation in order for cancer survivors to fully benefit from the potential advantages of SCPs.
Authors: Leigh Anne Faul; Brian Rivers; David Shibata; Ione Townsend; Patricia Cabrera; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: J Psychosoc Oncol Date: 2012
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: 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: Nicole P M Ezendam; Kim A H Nicolaije; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Johanna M A Pijnenborg; M Caroline Vos; Dorry Boll; Marjo van Bommel; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Sarah A Birken; Robin Urquhart; Corrine Munoz-Plaza; Alexandra R Zizzi; Emily Haines; Angela Stover; Deborah K Mayer; Erin E Hahn Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Rebecca E Hill; Claire E Wakefield; Richard J Cohn; Joanna E Fardell; Mary-Ellen E Brierley; Emily Kothe; Paul B Jacobsen; Kate Hetherington; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-10-25
Authors: Rebecca E Hill; Claire E Wakefield; Richard J Cohn; Joanna E Fardell; Mary-Ellen E Brierley; Emily Kothe; Paul B Jacobsen; Kate Hetherington; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-10-25
Authors: Shrujal S Baxi; Ranjit Sukhu; Elizabeth Fortier; Kevin Oeffinger; Stacie Corcoran; Andrew Salner; Andrew J Vickers; Mary S McCabe; Talya Salz Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: J Giese-Davis; J Sisler; L Zhong; Y Brandelli; J L McCormick; C Railton; L Shirt; H Lau; D Hao; J Chobanuk; B Walley; A A Joy; A Taylor; L Carlson Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 3.677