PURPOSE: This study assesses the effect of sending a Survivorship Care Plan (SCP) to primary care physicians (PCP) on the communication of the PCP with the medical specialist and the patient and to describe PCPs' opinions regarding the SCP. METHODS: In a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in 12 hospitals, the PCP of endometrial and ovarian cancer patients receivedusual information, while in addition the SCP-care arm received a copy of the patient's SCP. RESULTS: A questionnaire was returned by 266 PCPs (76%). One third of the PCPs in the SCP-care arm indicated having received an SCP. PCPs in the SCP-care arm were more likely to have had personal contact with the medical specialist (52 vs. 37%, p = 0.01) but were equally satisfied with the information as PCPs in the usual care arm (7.2 vs. 6.9 on a scale from 1 to 10, p = 0.25). Of all PCPs, 82% indicated they would want to receive an SCP in the future. A quarter of the PCPs who received an SCP reported that the SCP supported contact with the patient. However, the SCP was found too long. CONCLUSIONS: Supplying an SCP to PCPs potentially has a positive effect on the communication between the PCP and the medical specialist. The SCP should be concise and focused on PCPs' needs, such as contact information and tailored information on patient diagnosis, treatment, and possible consequences. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: In the light of transition of cancer care to PCPs, survivors may benefit from improved information provision and communication.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This study assesses the effect of sending a Survivorship Care Plan (SCP) to primary care physicians (PCP) on the communication of the PCP with the medical specialist and the patient and to describe PCPs' opinions regarding the SCP. METHODS: In a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in 12 hospitals, the PCP of endometrial and ovarian cancerpatients received usual information, while in addition the SCP-care arm received a copy of the patient's SCP. RESULTS: A questionnaire was returned by 266 PCPs (76%). One third of the PCPs in the SCP-care arm indicated having received an SCP. PCPs in the SCP-care arm were more likely to have had personal contact with the medical specialist (52 vs. 37%, p = 0.01) but were equally satisfied with the information as PCPs in the usual care arm (7.2 vs. 6.9 on a scale from 1 to 10, p = 0.25). Of all PCPs, 82% indicated they would want to receive an SCP in the future. A quarter of the PCPs who received an SCP reported that the SCP supported contact with the patient. However, the SCP was found too long. CONCLUSIONS: Supplying an SCP to PCPs potentially has a positive effect on the communication between the PCP and the medical specialist. The SCP should be concise and focused on PCPs' needs, such as contact information and tailored information on patient diagnosis, treatment, and possible consequences. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: In the light of transition of cancer care to PCPs, survivors may benefit from improved information provision and communication.
Authors: Carriene Roorda; Annette J Berendsen; Manon Haverkamp; Klaas van der Meer; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Kim A H Nicolaije; Nicole P M Ezendam; M Caroline Vos; Johanna M A Pijnenborg; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Roy F P M Kruitwagen Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Katherine S Virgo; Catherine C Lerro; Carrie N Klabunde; Craig Earle; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Talya Salz; Kevin C Oeffinger; Peter R Lewis; Robert L Williams; Robert L Rhyne; Mark W Yeazel Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Callie Berkowitz; Deborah H Allen; Jennifer Tenhover; Leah L Zullig; John Ragsdale; Jonathan E Fischer; Kathryn I Pollak; Bridget F Koontz Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 2.037
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: 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: 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: 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: Melanie R Keats; Kelsey Shea; Louise Parker; Samuel A Stewart; Annette Flanders; Mark Bernstein Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.037
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