Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Do survivorship care plans impact patients' evaluations of care? A randomized evaluation with gynecologic oncology patients. Implementing a breast cancer registry and treatment plan/summary program in clinical practice: A pilot program Randomized controlled trial of a clinic-based survivorship intervention following adjuvant therapy in breast cancer survivors Increasing rates of breast cancer and cardiac surveillance among high-risk survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma following a mailed, one-page survivorship care plan. Development and Pilot Testing of a Nurse-Led Posttreatment Support Package for Bowel Cancer Survivors
Developing an evidence base for making public health decisions will require using data from evaluation studies with r and omized and nonr and omized design s. Assessing individual studies and using studies in quantitative research syntheses require transparent reporting of the study , with sufficient detail and clarity to readily see differences and similarities among studies in the same area . The Consoli date d St and ards of Reporting Trials ( CONSORT ) statement provides guidelines for transparent reporting of r and omized clinical trials . We present the initial version of the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonr and omized Design s ( TREND ) statement . These guidelines emphasize the reporting of theories used and descriptions of intervention and comparison conditions , research design , and methods of adjusting for possible biases in evaluation studies that use nonr and omized design OBJECTIVE Despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine regarding survivorship care plan ( SCP ) delivery to cancer patients , there have been few health service outcome evaluations thus far . METHODS Gynecologic cancer survivors who were up to one-year post-treatment could participate in an evaluation assessing the health services provided and their perceptions of quality of care . A r and omized , nested , cross-sectional design was used in a large group gynecologic oncology practice . Half ( n=3 ) of the physicians were r and omized to provide and discuss a SCP to patients during a follow-up visit , and the other half did not . Following their visits , all patients were informed that a health service evaluation of the practice was being conducted . Interested patients completed an anonymous 26-item survey assessing administrative , clinical , and educational health services , helpfulness of written material s , and perceptions of quality of care . RESULTS Of the 121 survivors surveyed , 64 received SCPs and 57 were in the no-SCP condition . As a validity check , one question asked about educational material s received during the visit with an expected significant difference noted between conditions ( X(2)=5.513 , p=.019 ; more SCP patients reported receiving material s ) . However , there were no differences between conditions when patients rated health services ( Fs>.37 ) or helpfulness of material s and perceptions of care ( Fs>.19 ) . CONCLUSIONS Gynecologic oncology patients providing ratings of health services and satisfaction with care provided equivalent evaluations , regardless if they had/had not received a SCP from the physician . Thus , the need remains for further evaluations of SCPs if they are to be vehicles for improving health service outcomes There is a need to better measure and improve the quality of oncology care and improve communication with patients and other providers . The American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Registry ( BCR ) pilot evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of prospect i ve data collection for quality assessment in daily clinical practice . Data were used to create and share treatment plans/summaries ( TPSs ) at the point of care In 2006 , the IOM released a report citing the importance of “ survivorship plans ” to improve quality of life and care coordination for cancer survivors , but little has been done to evaluate their efficacy . Women with early-stage breast cancer were r and omized within 6 weeks of completing adjuvant therapy to a survivorship intervention group ( SI ) or control group ( CG ) . All subjects were given the NCI publication , “ Facing Forward : Life after Cancer Treatment . ” The SI also met with a nurse/nutritionist to receive a treatment summary , surveillance , and lifestyle recommendations . Both groups completed question naires on the impact of cancer ( IOC ) , patient satisfaction ( FACIT-TS-PS ) , and assessment of survivor concerns ( ASC ) at baseline , 3 and 6 months . Within and between group t tests and linear regression analyses were performed . Among 126 women ( 60 CG , 66 SI ) , mean age was 54 years , 48 % were Hispanic , and the groups were well-balanced by baseline characteristics . No significant differences between the CG and SI on the FACIT-TS-PS or IOC at 3 and 6 months were seen . The ASC health worry subscale was lower ( less worry ) in the SI compared to CG ( p = 0.02 ) . At all time-points , Hispanic women had higher ( worse ) health worry ( p = 0.0008 ) , social-life interference ( p = 0.009 ) , and meaning of cancer scales ( p = 0.0004 ) , and more trust in medical professionals ( p = 0.03 ) compared to non-Hispanic women . While the SI did not lead to significant improvements in most patient-reported outcomes , it was associated with decreased health worry . Future interventions should determine the most efficient and effective method for delivering survivorship care plans BACKGROUND Hodgkin lymphoma ( HL ) survivors face substantially elevated risks of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease . They and their physicians are often unaware of these risks and surveillance recommendations . PROCEDURE A prospect i ve one-arm study was conducted among a r and om sample of 72 HL survivors , ages 27 - 55 years , participating in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study ( CCSS ) who were at increased risk for breast cancer and /or cardiomyopathy and had not had a screening mammogram or echocardiogram , respectively , within the prior 2 years . A one-page survivorship care plan with recommendations for surveillance was mailed to participants . In addition , survivors ' primary physicians were contacted and provided patient-specific information and a web-based Virtual Information Center was made available for both survivors and physicians . Outcomes were assessed by telephone 6 months after the intervention . RESULTS The survivor participation ( 62/72 ; 86 % ) and 6-month retention ( 56/61 ; 92 % ) rates were high . Tension and anxiety , measured by the Profile of Mood States , did not increase following risk notification ; 91 % of survivors described their reactions to receiving the information in positive terms . At 6 months , 41 % of survivors reported having completed the recommended mammogram ; 20 % reported having an echocardiogram ( females 30 % , males 10 % ) . Only 29 % of survivors visited the website . Nine physicians enrolled , and none used the study re sources . CONCLUSION A mailed , personalized survivorship care plan was effective in communicating risk and increasing compliance with recommended medical surveillance . Internet- and telephone-based strategies to communicate risk were not utilized by survivors or physicians Background : Colorectal cancer ( CRC ) is the most common cancer affecting both men and women in Australia . The illness and related treatments can cause distressing adverse effects , impact on emotional and psychological well-being , and adversely affect social , occupational , and relationship functioning . Current models of follow-up fail to address the complex needs arising after treatment completion . Strategies to better prepare and support survivors are urgently required . Objectives : This study aim ed to develop and pilot test an innovative supportive care program for people with potentially curative CRC . Methods : The SurvivorCare intervention was developed by a multidisciplinary team using 3 key principles : ( 1 ) promote patient involvement and engagement ; ( 2 ) address the specific needs of individual patients , and ( 3 ) use evidence -based strategies to promote well-being and reduce treatment sequelae . It also addressed 4 essential components of survivorship planning , defined by the US Institute of Medicine . Ten survivors completed question naires and satisfaction interviews before and after receiving the intervention . Results : SurvivorCare comprises survivorship educational material s ( booklet , DVD , and question prompt list ) , a tailored survivorship care plan , a tailored nurse-led end-of-treatment consultation , and 3 follow-up telephone calls . Pilot data demonstrated that survivors considered the intervention appropriate , relevant , and useful . Conclusions : SurvivorCare is a well-received , comprehensive intervention that will now be evaluated in a r and omized controlled trial aim ing to reduce distress and unmet needs and improve quality of life in CRC survivors . Implication s for Practice : If SurvivorCare is shown to be effective , it will be possible to quickly and broadly disseminate this model of care
Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to describe and examine the current use of treatment summaries and survivorship care plans ( TSs/SCPs ) for cancer survivors , as well as to summarize and critically assess relevant literature regarding their preferences and usefulness .
There is a knowledge gap regarding the preferences of stakeholders as to what is useful on a treatment summary or survivorship care plan .