Evaluating Survivorship Care Plans: Results of a Randomized, Clinical Trial of Patients With Breast Cancer

Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Ontario, Canada.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 17.88). 12/2011; 29(36):4755-62. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.8373
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT An Institute of Medicine report recommends that patients with cancer receive a survivorship care plan (SCP). The trial objective was to determine if an SCP for breast cancer survivors improves patient-reported outcomes.
Women with early-stage breast cancer who completed primary treatment at least 3 months previously were eligible. Consenting patients were allocated within two strata: less than 24 months and ≥ 24 months since diagnosis. All patients were transferred to their own primary care physician (PCP) for follow-up. In addition to a discharge visit, the intervention group received an SCP, which was reviewed during a 30-minute educational session with a nurse, and their PCP received the SCP and guideline on follow-up. The primary outcome was cancer-related distress at 12 months, assessed by the Impact of Event Scale (IES). Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, continuity/coordination of care, and health service measures.
Overall, 408 survivors were enrolled through nine tertiary cancer centers. There were no differences between groups on cancer-related distress or on any of the patient-reported secondary outcomes, and there were no differences when the two strata were analyzed separately. More patients in the intervention than control group correctly identify their PCP as primarily responsible for follow-up (98.7% v 89.1%; difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 3.9 to 15.9; P = .005).
The results do not support the hypothesis that SCPs are beneficial for improving patient-reported outcomes. Transferring follow-up to PCPs is considered an important strategy to meet the demand for scarce oncology resources. SCPs were no better than a standard discharge visit with the oncologist to facilitate transfer.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Problem Identification: In 2005, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a seminal report on cancer survivorship that discussed the goals and structure of cancer survivorship care with the recommendation to use a survivorship care plan (SCP). However, the manner in which these recommendations are operationalized and their relationship to patient outcomes are unknown. Literature Search: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL (R), and the Cochrane Database. Articles were selected if they included a provider-mediated intervention and were published after 2005, for a total of nine articles. Data Evaluation: The studies were evaluated according to the purposes of survivorship care, the use of an SCP, and models of care recommended by the IOM. Conclusions: The outcomes of the studies were not conclusive in supporting a specific model of survivorship care or the use of a SCP. Two of the nine studies adhered to the IOM goals of survivorship care and SCP recommendations in their interventions. Implications for Practice: The design and testing of nurse-led survivorship programs is imperative, as nurses may be effective in ensuring consistent, patient-centered education for cancer survivors.
    Oncology nursing forum 11/2014; 41(6):615-25. DOI:10.1188/14.ONF.615-625 · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We report results from the use of an innovative tool (the Grid-Enabled Measures (GEM) database) to drive consensus on the use of measures evaluating the efficacy and implementation of survivorship care plans. The goal of this initiative was to increase the use of publicly available shared measures to enable comparability across studies. Between February and August 2012, research and practice communities populated the GEM platform with constructs and measures relevant to survivorship care planning, rated the measures, and provided qualitative feedback on the quality of the measures. Fifty-one constructs and 124 measures were entered into the GEM-Care Planning workspace by participants. The greatest number of measures appeared in the domains of Health and Psychosocial Outcomes, Health Behaviors, and Coordination of Care/Transitional Care. Using technology-mediated social participation, GEM presents a novel approach to how we measure and improve the quality of survivorship care.
    03/2015; 5(1):53-9. DOI:10.1007/s13142-014-0289-5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Eight years after the Institute of Medicine recommended survivorship care plans (SCPs) for all cancer survivors, this study systematically reviewed the evidence for their use.Methods:Studies evaluating outcomes after implementation of SCPs for cancer survivors were identified by searching databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane). Data were extracted and summarised.Results:Ten prospective studies (2286 survivors) met inclusion criteria (5 randomised controlled trials (RCTs)). Study populations included survivors of breast, gynaecological, colorectal and childhood cancer. Several models of SCP were evaluated (paper based/on-line, oncologist/nurse/primary-care physician-delivered and different templates). No significant effect of SCPs was found on survivor distress, satisfaction with care, cancer-care coordination or oncological outcomes in RCTs. Breast cancer survivors with SCPs were better able to correctly identify the clinician responsible for their follow-up care. One study suggested a positive impact on reducing unmet needs. Levels of survivor satisfaction with, and self-reported understanding of, their SCP were very high. Feasibility was raised by health professionals as a significant barrier, as SCPs took 1-4 h of their time to develop.Conclusions:Emerging evidence shows very few measurable benefits of SCPs. Survivors reported high levels of satisfaction with SCPs. Resource issues were identified as a significant barrier to implementation.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 14 October 2014; doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.505
    British Journal of Cancer 10/2014; 111(10). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2014.505 · 4.82 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 21, 2014