PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the relationship between survivorship care planning (SCP) and survivorship care and health outcomes reported by long-term lung and colorectal cancer survivors. METHODS: Participants (n = 832) were diagnosed and enrolled during 2003-2005. In 2012, patient-reported outcomes (survivorship care and health outcomes) and two patient-reported SCP measures (receipt of written summary of cancer treatment and receipt of instructions on who to see for routine cancer follow-up) were collected. Analyses controlled for SCP predictors collected from medical records and an interview 1 year after diagnosis. RESULTS: One in four survivors reported receiving both SCP elements. Those receiving both were more certain which doctor was in charge (odds ratio (OR) 7.0; 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) 3.9-12.5), more likely to report follow-up checkup (OR 5.1; 95 % CI 3.3-8.0), and had an MRI/PET/CT scan in the past 2 years (OR 2.8; 95 % CI 1.7-4.7) compared to those receiving neither. Physician communication experiences were significantly more positive and having physical exams (OR 2.0; 95 % CI 1.2-3.4) and meeting exercise guidelines (OR 1.6; 95 % CI 1.004-2.4) more likely. Physical health (p = 0.012) and good-to-excellent self-perceived health status (OR 2.2; 95 % CI 1.3-3.9) were better for those receiving both elements. CONCLUSION: SCP may lead to better cancer follow-up care, long-term physical health, and physician-patient communication experiences. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The positive association between outcomes and SCP suggests that efforts to implement SCP should be fruitful.
PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the relationship between survivorship care planning (SCP) and survivorship care and health outcomes reported by long-term lung and colorectal cancer survivors. METHODS:Participants (n = 832) were diagnosed and enrolled during 2003-2005. In 2012, patient-reported outcomes (survivorship care and health outcomes) and two patient-reported SCP measures (receipt of written summary of cancer treatment and receipt of instructions on who to see for routine cancer follow-up) were collected. Analyses controlled for SCP predictors collected from medical records and an interview 1 year after diagnosis. RESULTS: One in four survivors reported receiving both SCP elements. Those receiving both were more certain which doctor was in charge (odds ratio (OR) 7.0; 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) 3.9-12.5), more likely to report follow-up checkup (OR 5.1; 95 % CI 3.3-8.0), and had an MRI/PET/CT scan in the past 2 years (OR 2.8; 95 % CI 1.7-4.7) compared to those receiving neither. Physician communication experiences were significantly more positive and having physical exams (OR 2.0; 95 % CI 1.2-3.4) and meeting exercise guidelines (OR 1.6; 95 % CI 1.004-2.4) more likely. Physical health (p = 0.012) and good-to-excellent self-perceived health status (OR 2.2; 95 % CI 1.3-3.9) were better for those receiving both elements. CONCLUSION:SCP may lead to better cancer follow-up care, long-term physical health, and physician-patient communication experiences. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The positive association between outcomes and SCP suggests that efforts to implement SCP should be fruitful.
Authors: John Z Ayanian; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Robert H Fletcher; Mona N Fouad; David P Harrington; Katherine L Kahn; Catarina I Kiefe; Joseph Lipscomb; Jennifer L Malin; Arnold L Potosky; Dawn T Provenzale; Robert S Sandler; Michelle van Ryn; Robert B Wallace; Jane C Weeks; Dee W West Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Danielle Blanch-Hartigan; Laura P Forsythe; Catherine M Alfano; Tenbroeck Smith; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Patricia A Ganz; Julia H Rowland Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Melinda Kantsiper; Erin L McDonald; Gail Geller; Lillie Shockney; Claire Snyder; Antonio C Wolff Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Joseph L Benci; Carolyn C Vachani; Christina Bach; Karen Arnold-Korzeniowski; Margaret K Hampshire; James M Metz; Christine E Hill-Kayser Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2018-07-03 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Danielle Blanch-Hartigan; Neetu Chawla; Ellen I Beckjord; Laura P Forsythe; Janet S de Moor; Bradford W Hesse; Neeraj K Arora Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2015-06-17
Authors: Bradley D McDowell; Jennifer Klemp; Anne Blaes; Andrea A Cohee; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Sailaja Kamaraju; Julie L Otte; Sarah L Mott; Elizabeth A Chrischilles Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Elyse R Park; Sarah E Skurla; Grelda Yazmin Juarez Caballero; Emily R Friedman; Colin Ponzani; Robert Wallace; Jennifer Malin; Nancy L Keating Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Ulrike Boehmer; Jennifer Potter; Melissa A Clark; Michael Winter; Flora Berklein; Rachel M Ceballos; Kevan Hartshorn; Al Ozonoff Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 4.442