Joseph L Benci1, Carolyn C Vachani1, Christina Bach1, Karen Arnold-Korzeniowski1, Margaret K Hampshire1, James M Metz1, Christine E Hill-Kayser2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman Center for Academic Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, TRC 2 West, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman Center for Academic Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, TRC 2 West, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. hill@uphs.upenn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand what factors influence whether a cancer survivor will share their survivorship care plan (SCP) with their healthcare provider (HCP). METHODS: We used data from 3231 cancer survivors who utilized the OncoLink SCP resource between 2009 and 2016. Random forest and stepwise regression were used to identify predictors of SCP satisfaction and barriers to survivors sharing their care plans with their HCPs. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of users rated their satisfaction with their SCP as good or better; however, only 70% of survivors planned to share their SCP with their HCP. The most commonly reported reason for not sharing was a feeling that their HCP would not care. Self-reported satisfaction with their SCP was strongest predictor of whether a survivor would share their SCP. Gender, cancer status, number of chemotherapies received, and who was managing their healthcare were all associated with self-reported survivor satisfaction with their SCP. CONCLUSIONS: Survivor satisfaction with SCPs was high, but there was a disconnect in the number of satisfied survivors and the number of survivors planning to share their SCP with their HCP. To bridge this gap, additional prompts that HCPs are expecting this information should be added to the care plans. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: One of the primary functions of survivorship care plans is to improve communication between survivor and healthcare provider. While survivors are overwhelmingly satisfied with their SCP, additional steps are necessary to get survivors to share their SCP with their HCP.
PURPOSE: To understand what factors influence whether a cancer survivor will share their survivorship care plan (SCP) with their healthcare provider (HCP). METHODS: We used data from 3231 cancer survivors who utilized the OncoLink SCP resource between 2009 and 2016. Random forest and stepwise regression were used to identify predictors of SCP satisfaction and barriers to survivors sharing their care plans with their HCPs. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of users rated their satisfaction with their SCP as good or better; however, only 70% of survivors planned to share their SCP with their HCP. The most commonly reported reason for not sharing was a feeling that their HCP would not care. Self-reported satisfaction with their SCP was strongest predictor of whether a survivor would share their SCP. Gender, cancer status, number of chemotherapies received, and who was managing their healthcare were all associated with self-reported survivor satisfaction with their SCP. CONCLUSIONS: Survivor satisfaction with SCPs was high, but there was a disconnect in the number of satisfied survivors and the number of survivors planning to share their SCP with their HCP. To bridge this gap, additional prompts that HCPs are expecting this information should be added to the care plans. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: One of the primary functions of survivorship care plans is to improve communication between survivor and healthcare provider. While survivors are overwhelmingly satisfied with their SCP, additional steps are necessary to get survivors to share their SCP with their HCP.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health disparities; Internet; Patient satisfaction; Survivor satisfaction; Survivorship; Survivorship care plan
Authors: Steven C Palmer; Carrie Tompkins Stricker; SarahLena L Panzer; Sarah A Arvey; K Scott Baker; Jackie Casillas; Patricia A Ganz; Mary S McCabe; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Linda Overholser; Ann H Partridge; Betsy Risendal; Donald L Rosenstein; Karen L Syrjala; Linda A Jacobs Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Bradley D McDowell; Linda Rubenstein; Mary Charlton; Jane Pendergast; Grelda Yazmin Juarez; Neeraj K Arora Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Janet S de Moor; Angela B Mariotto; Carla Parry; Catherine M Alfano; Lynne Padgett; Erin E Kent; Laura Forsythe; Steve Scoppa; Mark Hachey; Julia H Rowland Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Christine E Hill-Kayser; Carolyn C Vachani; Margaret K Hampshire; Gloria Di Lullo; Linda A Jacobs; James M Metz Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Joseph L Benci; Andy J Minn; Carolyn C Vachani; Christina Bach; Karen Arnold-Korzeniowski; Margaret K Hampshire; James M Metz; Christine E Hill-Kayser Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Neil K Aaronson; Vittorio Mattioli; Ollie Minton; Joachim Weis; Christoffer Johansen; Susanne O Dalton; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Kevin D Stein; Catherine M Alfano; Anja Mehnert; Angela de Boer; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: EJC Suppl Date: 2014-05-29