Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Oncology providers’ evaluation of the use of an automatically generated cancer survivorship care plan: longitudinal results from the ROGY Care trial

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Survivorship Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Previous studies have merely investigated oncology providers’ a priori attitudes toward SCPs. The purpose of the current study was to longitudinally evaluate oncology providers’ expectations and actual experiences with the use of an automatically generated Survivorship Care Plan (SCP) in daily clinical practice.

Methods

Between April 2011 and October 2012, the participating oncology providers (i.e., gynecologists, gynecologic oncologists, oncology nurses) provided usual care or SCP care to 222 endometrial and 85 ovarian cancer patients included in the Registrationsystem Oncological GYnecology (ROGY) Care trial. All (n = 43) oncology providers in both arms were requested to complete a questionnaire before and after patient inclusion regarding their expectations and evaluation of SCP care.

Results

Before patient inclusion, 38 (88 %; 21 SCP, 17 usual care), and after patient inclusion, 35 (83 %; 20 SCP, 15 usual care) oncology providers returned the questionnaire. After patient inclusion, oncology providers were generally satisfied with the SCP (M = 7.1, SD = 1.3, with 1 = not at all–10 = very much) and motivated to keep using the SCP (M = 7.9, SD = 1.5). Most providers (64 %) encountered barriers. Twenty-five percent felt they used more time for consultations (M = 7.3 min, SD = 4.6). However, self-reported consultation time did not differ between before (M = 21.8 min, SD = 11.6) and after patient inclusion (M = 18.7, SD = 10.6; p = 0.22) or between SCP care (M = 18.5, SD = 10.3) and usual care (M = 22.0, SD = 12.2; p = 0.21).

Conclusions

Oncology providers using the SCP were generally satisfied and motivated to keep using the SCP. However, the findings of the current study suggest that even when the SCP can be generated automatically, oncology providers still have difficulties with finding the time to discuss the SCP with their patients.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

If SCP care is indeed effective, overcoming the perceived barriers is needed before large-scale implementation in order for cancer survivors to fully benefit from the potential advantages of SCPs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Erikson C, Salsberg E, Forte G, Bruinooge S, Goldstein M. Future supply and demand for oncologists: challenges to assuring access to oncology services. J Oncol Pract. 2007;3:79–86.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Signaleringscommissie Kanker van KWF Kankerbestrijding: Kanker in Nederland tot 2020. Trends en prognoses (online attachment: www.kwfkankerbestrijding.nl/sck). 2011.

  3. Hewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Salz T, Oeffinger KC, McCabe MS, Layne TM, Bach PB. Survivorship care plans in research and practice. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:101–17.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Baravelli C, Krishnasamy M, Pezaro C, Schofield P, Lotfi-Jam K, Rogers M, et al. The views of bowel cancer survivors and health care professionals regarding survivorship care plans and post treatment follow up. J Cancer Surviv. 2009;3:99–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hewitt ME, Bamundo A, Day R, Harvey C. Perspectives on post-treatment cancer care: qualitative research with survivors, nurses, and physicians. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2270–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Watson EK, Sugden EM, Rose PW. Views of primary care physicians and oncologists on cancer follow-up initiatives in primary care: an online survey. J Cancer Surviv. 2010;4:159–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kantsiper M, McDonald EL, Geller G, Shockney L, Snyder C, Wolff AC. Transitioning to breast cancer survivorship: perspectives of patients, cancer specialists, and primary care providers. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:S459–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brennan ME, Butow P, Spillane J, Boyle FM. Survivorship care after breast cancer: follow-up practices of Australian health professionals and attitudes to a survivorship care plan. Asia Pac J Clin Onc. 2010;6:116–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Birken SA, Mayer DK, Weiner BJ. Survivorship care plans: prevalence and barriers to use. J Cancer Educ. 2013;28:290–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell MK, Tessaro I, Gellin M, Valle CG, Golden S, Kaye L, et al. Adult cancer survivorship care: experiences from the LIVESTRONG centers of excellence network. J Cancer Surviv. 2011;5:271–82.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ganz PA. Quality of care and cancer survivorship: the challenge of implementing the institute of medicine recommendations. J Oncol Pract. 2009;5:101–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stricker CT, Jacobs LA, Risendal B, Jones A, Panzer S, Ganz PA, et al. Survivorship care planning after the institute of medicine recommendations: how are we faring? J Cancer Surviv. 2011;5:358–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Faul LA, Rivers B, Shibata D, Townsend I, Carbrera P, Quin GP, et al. Survivorship care planning in colorectal cancer: feedback from survivors and providers. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2012;30:198–216.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Horning SJ. Follow-up of adult cancer survivors: new paradigms for survivorship care planning. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2008;22:201–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Earle CC. Long term care planning for cancer survivors: a health services research agenda. J Cancer Surviv. 2007;1:64–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Horowitz ME, Fordis M, Krause S, McKellar J, Poplack DG. Passport for care: implementing the survivorship care plan. J Oncol Pract. 2009;5:110–2.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hill-Kayser CE, Vachani C, Hampshire MK, Jacob LA, Metz JM. An internet tool for creation of cancer survivorship care plans for survivors and health care providers: design, implementation, use, and user satisfaction. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11:e39.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van de Poll-Franse LV, Nicolaije KAH, Vos MC, Pijnenborg JM, Boll D, Husson O, et al. The impact of a cancer Survivorship Care Plan on gynecological cancer patient and health care provider reported outcomes (ROGY Care): study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2011;12:256.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ganz PA, Hahn EE. Implementing a survivorship care plan for patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:759–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tuinman MA, Gazendam-Donofrio SM, Hoekstra-Weebers JEHM. Screening and referral for psychosocial distress in oncologic practice: use of the Distress Thermometer. Cancer. 2008;113:870–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Earle CC. Failing to plan is planning to fail: improving the quality of care with survivorship care plans. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5112–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hahn EE, Ganz PA. Survivorship programs and care plans in practice: variations on a theme. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7:70–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stricker CT, Jacobs LA, Palmer SC. Survivorship care plans: an argument for evidence over common sense. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1392–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Grunfeld E, Julian A, Pond G, Maunsell E, Coyle D, Folkes A, et al. Evaluating survivorship care plans: results of a randomized, clinical trial of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4755–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brothers BM, Easley A, Salani R, Andersen BL. Do survivorship care plans impact patients’ evaluations of care? A randomized evaluation with gynecologic oncology patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129:554–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all patients and oncology providers for their participation in the study. Special thanks go to the research assistants, in particular Mrs. E. de Winter, who helped to collect the data for this study. In addition, we would like to acknowledge Dr. M. van Bommel, who was willing to function as an independent advisor and to answer patients’ questions. We would like to thank the following hospitals and institutions for their cooperation: Amphia Hospital, Breda and Oosterhout; Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven; Elkerliek Hospital, Helmond; Jeroen Bosch Hospital,’s-Hertogenbosch; Institute Verbeeten, Tilburg; Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht; Maxima Medical Center, Eindhoven and Veldhoven; Orbis Medical Center, Sittard; St. Anna Hospital, Geldrop and Eindhoven; St. Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg; St. Jans Hospital, Weert; TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg and Waalwijk; and VieCuri Hospital, Venlo and Venray. The ROGY Care trial is supported with grant no. UVT 2010-4743 from the Dutch Cancer Society. Prof. Dr. Lonneke van de Poll-Franse is supported by a Cancer Research Award from the Dutch Cancer Society (#UVT-2009-4349).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CoRPS–Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases, Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, PO Box 90153, LE Tilburg, 5000, The Netherlands

    Kim A. H. Nicolaije, Nicole P. M. Ezendam & Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse

  2. Eindhoven Cancer Registry, Comprehensive Cancer Center South (CCCS), Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Kim A. H. Nicolaije, Nicole P. M. Ezendam & Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    M. Caroline Vos

  4. Department of Gynecology, TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg and Waalwijk, The Netherlands

    Johanna M. A. Pijnenborg

  5. Department of Gynecology and GROW–School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Roy F. P. M. Kruitwagen

Authors
  1. Kim A. H. Nicolaije
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicole P. M. Ezendam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Caroline Vos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Johanna M. A. Pijnenborg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roy F. P. M. Kruitwagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim A. H. Nicolaije.

Appendix

Appendix

Questionnaires oncology providers

  1. 1.

    In which hospital are you employed? (CG + IG; BI + AI): OPEN ENDED

  2. 2.

    What is your profession? (CG + IG; BI + AI): Gynecologist/GO/(Oncology) nurse/Nurse practitioner/Other, namely…

  3. 3.

    Gender (CG + IG; BI + AI): Male/Female

  4. 4.

    Age (CG + IG; BI + AI): … years

  5. 5.

    How do you currently provide information to your patients? More than one answer possible (CG + IG; BI + AI): SCP1/Verbally/Brochure Dutch Cancer Society/Other brochure/Referral to website/CD-ROM/Other, namely…

  6. 6.

    How satisfied are you with the information you currently provide to your patients? (CG + IG; BI + AI) : Not at all (1)–Very much (10)

  7. 7.

    How do you currently screen for psychosocial distress? More than one answer possible (CG + IG; BI + AI): Screening instrument, namely…/I do not screen for psychosocial distress/Other, namely…

  8. 8.

    How long does an average consultation take you currently? (CG + IG; BI + AI): … minutes

  9. 9.

    Do you expect to need more time for your consultations because of the SCP? (IG; BI): No/Yes, approximately … minutes more time

  10. 10.

    To what extent do you expect the SCP to affect the patient positively? (IG; BI): Not at all (1)–Very much (10)

  11. 11.

    How motivated are you to start using the SCP? (IG; BI): Not at all (1)–Very much (10)

  12. 12.

    Were you a provider of SCPs in your hospital? (IG; AI): Yes, always (continue with question 13)/Yes, most of the time (continue with question 13)/Yes, sometimes (continue with question 13)/No (continue with question 28)

  13. 13.

    What do you think about the amount of information in the SCP? (IG; AI): Much too little (1)–Much too much (10)

  14. 14.

    Did you miss information in the SCP? (IG; AI): No/Yes, namely…

  15. 15.

    Would you prefer not to have certain information in the SCP? (IG; AI): No/Yes, namely…

  16. 16.

    To what extent do you think the SCP affects the patient positively? (IG; AI): Not at all (1)–Very much (10)

  17. 17.

    How did you provide the SCP to patients? More than one answer possible (IG; AI): Personally, on paper/Sent by mail/As PDF by e-mail/Other, namely…

  18. 18.

    How extensively did you discuss the SCP with patients? (IG; AI): Not at all (1)–Very extensively (10)

  19. 19.

    Do you feel that you use more/less time for your consultation because of the SCP? (IG; AI): No, stayed the same/Yes, approximately … minutes more time/Yes, approximately … minutes less time

  20. 20.

    To what extent did you succeed in providing an SCP to all eligible patients? (IG; AI): Not at all (1)–Very well (10)

  21. 21.

    To what extent did the SCP contribute positively to the communication between yourself and the patient? (IG; AI): Not at all (1)–Very much (10)

  22. 22.

    To what extent did you succeed in providing an SCP to all involved Primary Care Physicians? (IG; AI): Not at all (1)–Very well (10)

  23. 23.

    To what extent did the SCP contribute positively to the communication between yourself and the involved Primary Care Physicians? (IG; AI): Not at all (1)–Very much (10)

  24. 24.

    How satisfied are you in general with the use of the SCP? (IG; AI): Not at all (1)–Very much (10)

  25. 25.

    Did you encounter practical problems in the use of the SCP? (IG; AI): No (continue with question 27)/Yes (continue with question 26)

  26. 26.

    Which practical problems did you encounter in the use of the SCP? More than one answer possible (IG; AI): ROGY was not always completed in time/The “SCP button” in ROGY did not always work/There was not always an appropriate moment to discuss the SCP with the patient/Other, namely…

  27. 27.

    Do you have any suggestions for improvements of the SCP? (IG; AI): open-ended

  28. 28.

    How motivated are you to use/keep using the SCP in the future? (IG; AI): Not at all (1)–Very much (10)

  29. 29.

    Who do you think should provide the SCP to the patient? (IG; AI): Gynecologist–GO/(Oncology) nurse–nurse practitioner/Primary Care Physician/Other, namely…

  30. 30.

    Do you have any comments? (CG + IG; BI + AI): OPEN ENDED

Note: CG Control Group; IG Intervention Group; BI Before Inclusion; AI After Inclusion. 1Only for the intervention group after inclusion

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nicolaije, K.A.H., Ezendam, N.P.M., Vos, M.C. et al. Oncology providers’ evaluation of the use of an automatically generated cancer survivorship care plan: longitudinal results from the ROGY Care trial. J Cancer Surviv 8, 248–259 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-013-0327-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-013-0327-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation