Sarah A Birken1, Robin Urquhart2, Corrine Munoz-Plaza3, Alexandra R Zizzi4, Emily Haines4, Angela Stover4, Deborah K Mayer5, Erin E Hahn3. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1103E McGavran-Greenberg Hall, 135 Dauer Dr., Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. birken@unc.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. 3. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Research, Pasadena, CA, USA. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1103E McGavran-Greenberg Hall, 135 Dauer Dr., Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. 5. School of Nursing, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes assessed in extant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to outcomes that stakeholders expect from survivorship care plans (SCPs). To facilitate the transition from active treatment to follow-up care for the 15.5 million US cancer survivors, many organizations require SCP use. However, results of several RCTs of SCPs' effectiveness have been null, possibly because they have evaluated outcomes on which SCPs should be expected to have limited influence. Stakeholders (e.g., survivors, oncologists) may expect outcomes that differ from RCTs' outcomes. METHODS: We identified RCTs' outcomes using a PubMed literature review. We identified outcomes that stakeholders expect from SCPs using semistructured interviews with stakeholders in three healthcare systems in the USA and Canada. Finally, we mapped RCTs' outcomes onto stakeholder-identified outcomes. RESULTS: RCT outcomes did not fully address outcomes that stakeholders expected from SCPs, and RCTs assessed outcomes that stakeholders did not expect from SCPs. RCTs often assessed outcomes only from survivors' perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs of SCPs' effectiveness have not assessed outcomes that stakeholders expect. To better understand SCPs' effectiveness, future RCTs should assess outcomes of SCP use that are relevant from the perspective of multiple stakeholders. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: SCPs' effectiveness may be optimized when used with an eye toward outcomes that stakeholders expect from SCPs. For survivors, this means using SCPs as a map to guide them with respect to what kind of follow-up care they should seek, when they should seek it, and from whom they should seek it.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes assessed in extant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to outcomes that stakeholders expect from survivorship care plans (SCPs). To facilitate the transition from active treatment to follow-up care for the 15.5 million US cancer survivors, many organizations require SCP use. However, results of several RCTs of SCPs' effectiveness have been null, possibly because they have evaluated outcomes on which SCPs should be expected to have limited influence. Stakeholders (e.g., survivors, oncologists) may expect outcomes that differ from RCTs' outcomes. METHODS: We identified RCTs' outcomes using a PubMed literature review. We identified outcomes that stakeholders expect from SCPs using semistructured interviews with stakeholders in three healthcare systems in the USA and Canada. Finally, we mapped RCTs' outcomes onto stakeholder-identified outcomes. RESULTS: RCT outcomes did not fully address outcomes that stakeholders expected from SCPs, and RCTs assessed outcomes that stakeholders did not expect from SCPs. RCTs often assessed outcomes only from survivors' perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs of SCPs' effectiveness have not assessed outcomes that stakeholders expect. To better understand SCPs' effectiveness, future RCTs should assess outcomes of SCP use that are relevant from the perspective of multiple stakeholders. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: SCPs' effectiveness may be optimized when used with an eye toward outcomes that stakeholders expect from SCPs. For survivors, this means using SCPs as a map to guide them with respect to what kind of follow-up care they should seek, when they should seek it, and from whom they should seek it.
Entities:
Keywords:
Outcomes; Randomized controlled trials; Stakeholders; Survivorship care plans
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: Kim Agnes Helma Nicolaije; Olga Husson; Nicole Paulina Maria Ezendam; Maria Caroline Vos; Rutgerus Franciscus Petrus Maria Kruitwagen; Marnix Lodewijk Maria Lybeert; Lonneke Veronique van de Poll-Franse Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2012-06-01
Authors: Kim Ah Nicolaije; Nicole Pm Ezendam; Johanna Ma Pijnenborg; Dorry Boll; Maria Caroline Vos; Roy Fpm Kruitwagen; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 5.428
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: Amye J Tevaarwerk; William G Hocking; Kevin A Buhr; Mindy Gribble; Lori A Seaborne; Kari B Wisinski; Mark E Burkard; Thomas Yen; Douglas A Wiegmann; Mary E Sesto Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Katherine R Sterba; Kent Armeson; Jane Zapka; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Megan L Scallion; Tiffany K Wall; Jama Olsen; Evan M Graboyes; Anthony J Alberg; Terry A Day Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Belle H de Rooij; Nicole P M Ezendam; M Caroline Vos; Johanna M A Pijnenborg; Dorry Boll; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 6.860