Megan Delisle1,2, Margaret Fitch3, Kalki Nagaratnam2, Ying Wang4,5, Amirrtha Srikanthan6,7. 1. Division of General Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 5. BC Cancer Vancouver, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 6. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. asrikanthan@toh.ca. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center, C2323 - 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. asrikanthan@toh.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of individual and structural factors on cancer survivors' experiences with follow-up cancer care. METHODS: In 2016, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer collected survey responses from cancer survivors about their experiences with follow-up cancer care. We included respondents from this survey if they were diagnosed with non-metastatic breast, hematologic, colon, melanoma, and prostate cancer. Our primary outcome was cancer survivors' self-reported overall experience with follow-up cancer care. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the influence of individual and structural factors on cancer survivors' experiences with follow-up cancer care. RESULTS: Of the 8402 cancer survivors included in our study, 81.8% (n = 6,875) reported a positive experience with their follow-up cancer care. The individual factors associated with positive overall experiences were more commonly those associated with self-perceptions of respondents' personal health and well-being rather than baseline sociodemographic factors, such as sex, income, or education. For example, respondents were more likely to report a positive experience if they perceived their quality of life as good (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.5, p < 0.01) or reported not having an unmet practical concern (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6, p < 0.01). The structural factors most strongly associated with positive overall experiences included respondents perceiving their oncology specialist was in charge of their follow-up cancer care (OR 5.2, 95% CI 3.6-7.5, p < 0.01) and reporting the coordination of their follow-up cancer care among healthcare providers was good or very good (OR 8.4, 95% CI 6.7-10.6, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: While real-world experiences with follow-up cancer care in Canada are reported to be positive by most cancer survivors included in this study, we found differences exist based on individual and structural factors. A better understanding of the reasons for these differences is required to guide the provision of high-quality follow-up care that is adapted to the needs and resources of individuals and contexts.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of individual and structural factors on cancer survivors' experiences with follow-up cancer care. METHODS: In 2016, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer collected survey responses from cancer survivors about their experiences with follow-up cancer care. We included respondents from this survey if they were diagnosed with non-metastatic breast, hematologic, colon, melanoma, and prostate cancer. Our primary outcome was cancer survivors' self-reported overall experience with follow-up cancer care. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the influence of individual and structural factors on cancer survivors' experiences with follow-up cancer care. RESULTS: Of the 8402 cancer survivors included in our study, 81.8% (n = 6,875) reported a positive experience with their follow-up cancer care. The individual factors associated with positive overall experiences were more commonly those associated with self-perceptions of respondents' personal health and well-being rather than baseline sociodemographic factors, such as sex, income, or education. For example, respondents were more likely to report a positive experience if they perceived their quality of life as good (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.5, p < 0.01) or reported not having an unmet practical concern (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6, p < 0.01). The structural factors most strongly associated with positive overall experiences included respondents perceiving their oncology specialist was in charge of their follow-up cancer care (OR 5.2, 95% CI 3.6-7.5, p < 0.01) and reporting the coordination of their follow-up cancer care among healthcare providers was good or very good (OR 8.4, 95% CI 6.7-10.6, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: While real-world experiences with follow-up cancer care in Canada are reported to be positive by most cancer survivors included in this study, we found differences exist based on individual and structural factors. A better understanding of the reasons for these differences is required to guide the provision of high-quality follow-up care that is adapted to the needs and resources of individuals and contexts.
Authors: Ramzi G Salloum; Mark C Hornbrook; Paul A Fishman; Debra P Ritzwoller; Maureen C O'Keeffe Rossetti; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Margaret I Fitch; Andrea C Coronado; Julia C Schippke; Jennifer Chadder; Esther Green Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-09-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: D Howell; T F Hack; T K Oliver; T Chulak; S Mayo; M Aubin; M Chasen; C C Earle; A J Friedman; E Green; G W Jones; J M Jones; M Parkinson; N Payeur; C M Sabiston; S Sinclair Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Ronald M Kline; Neeraj K Arora; Cathy J Bradley; Eden R Brauer; Darci L Graves; Natasha Buchanan Lunsford; Mary S McCabe; Shelley Fuld Nasso; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Julia H Rowland; Rebekkah M Schear; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Allison G Close; Alexandra Dreyzin; Kimberly D Miller; Brittani K N Seynnaeve; Louis B Rapkin Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 508.702