PURPOSE: The growing population of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) survivors living longer with high physical and psychological treatment burden, in combination with the projected shortage of medical professionals, necessitates redesigning cancer follow-up care. This study examined follow-up care patterns, factors associated with follow-up care, and attitudes towards follow-up care among NHL survivors. METHODS: We surveyed survivors of aggressive NHL 2 to 5 years post-diagnosis (N = 363) using a population-based sample from the Los Angeles County Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registry. RESULTS: Most survivors (82 %) received cancer-related follow-up care in the past year from an oncologist. History of recurrence, more comorbidities, more symptoms, and a shorter survivor-oncologist relationship were associated with high-frequency care with the oncologist [(≥5 visits in the past year), p < 0.05]. Many survivors followed up by oncologists (71 %) also saw a primary care provider (PCP) and 47 % also saw both a PCP and other specialists. Factors associated with seeing a PCP in addition to an oncologist included more symptoms, more health information needs, no history of recurrence, perceived excellent quality of cancer follow-up care, and fewer visits with the oncologist (p < 0.05). Survivors generally reported high reassurance from, and low negative anticipation towards, follow-up care. CONCLUSIONS: The high proportion of NHL survivors receiving care from multiple physicians, and the sizable proportion (∼30 %) who have not recently seen a PCP, suggests that coordinating care across specialties is critical to ensure comprehensive, non-duplicative care. Understanding factors associated with cancer-related follow-up is a first step towards more effective, efficient, patient-centered care.
PURPOSE: The growing population of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) survivors living longer with high physical and psychological treatment burden, in combination with the projected shortage of medical professionals, necessitates redesigning cancer follow-up care. This study examined follow-up care patterns, factors associated with follow-up care, and attitudes towards follow-up care among NHL survivors. METHODS: We surveyed survivors of aggressive NHL 2 to 5 years post-diagnosis (N = 363) using a population-based sample from the Los Angeles County Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registry. RESULTS: Most survivors (82 %) received cancer-related follow-up care in the past year from an oncologist. History of recurrence, more comorbidities, more symptoms, and a shorter survivor-oncologist relationship were associated with high-frequency care with the oncologist [(≥5 visits in the past year), p < 0.05]. Many survivors followed up by oncologists (71 %) also saw a primary care provider (PCP) and 47 % also saw both a PCP and other specialists. Factors associated with seeing a PCP in addition to an oncologist included more symptoms, more health information needs, no history of recurrence, perceived excellent quality of cancer follow-up care, and fewer visits with the oncologist (p < 0.05). Survivors generally reported high reassurance from, and low negative anticipation towards, follow-up care. CONCLUSIONS: The high proportion of NHL survivors receiving care from multiple physicians, and the sizable proportion (∼30 %) who have not recently seen a PCP, suggests that coordinating care across specialties is critical to ensure comprehensive, non-duplicative care. Understanding factors associated with cancer-related follow-up is a first step towards more effective, efficient, patient-centered care.
Authors: Laura P Forsythe; Catherine M Alfano; Corinne R Leach; Patricia A Ganz; Michael E Stefanek; Julia H Rowland Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ellen Burke Beckjord; Neeraj K Arora; Wendy McLaughlin; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan; Ann S Hamilton; Bradford W Hesse Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2008-06-03 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Neeraj K Arora; Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Steven B Clauser; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David E Nelson; Gary L Kreps; Bradford W Hesse; Robert T Croyle; Gordon Willis; Neeraj K Arora; Barbara K Rimer; K V Viswanath; Neil Weinstein; Sara Alden Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2004 Sep-Oct
Authors: K Absolom; C Eiser; G Michel; S J Walters; B W Hancock; R E Coleman; J A Snowden; D M Greenfield Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Sophia K Smith; Catherine M Crespi; Laura Petersen; Sheryl Zimmerman; Patricia A Ganz Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.894
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: Rahul Garg; Usha Sambamoorthi; Xi Tan; Soumit K Basu; Treah Haggerty; Kimberly M Kelly Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Priyanka A Pophali; Melissa C Larson; Cristine Allmer; Umar Farooq; Brian K Link; Matthew J Maurer; James R Cerhan; Carrie A Thompson Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: J J C Stienen; P B Ottevanger; L Wennekes; S A M van de Schans; H M Dekker; R W M van der Maazen; J H J M van Krieken; N M A Blijlevens; R P M G Hermens Journal: Ann Hematol Date: 2015-03-15 Impact factor: 3.673
Authors: Lindy P J Arts; Simone Oerlemans; Lidwine Tick; Ad Koster; Henk T J Roerdink; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 6.860