Utility of survivorship care plans: A mixed-method study exploring general practitioners’ and cancer specialists’ views

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY

Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology Pub Date : 2023-12-05 DOI:10.1111/ajco.14038

Sim Yee Tan, Haryana M. Dhillon, Channel Mak, Roger Liang, Kim Kerin-Ayres, Kylie Vuong, Ashanya Malalasekera, Janette L. Vardy

{"title":"Utility of survivorship care plans: A mixed-method study exploring general practitioners’ and cancer specialists’ views","authors":"Sim Yee Tan, Haryana M. Dhillon, Channel Mak, Roger Liang, Kim Kerin-Ayres, Kylie Vuong, Ashanya Malalasekera, Janette L. Vardy","doi":"10.1111/ajco.14038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Survivorship care plans (SCP) are recommended as integral to survivorship care but are not routinely provided in many centers. We explore whether SCP from the Sydney Cancer Survivorship Centre (SCSC) clinic was received by general practitioners (GP) and cancer specialists, and their views on SCP.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A mixed-method study comprising a quality assurance audit, a questionnaire of GP practices and GP, and semi-structured interviews of cancer specialists who referred patients to the SCSC clinic between 2019–2020. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The audit found 153/190 (80.5%) SCSC attendees had SCP uploaded to hospital medical records. The response rate from GP practices was 41%; among the 55 responding practices, 38 (69%) did not receive the SCP. The response rate from GP was 19%; among the 29 responding GP, 25 (86%) indicated the SCP was worthwhile, especially follow-up plans and multidisciplinary team recommendations. Analysis of 14 cancer specialist interviews identified themes of 1) awareness of SCP; 2) access: SCP difficult to locate; 3) process: access and distribution require improvement; 4) systemic issues; 5) content and layout: more concise and better readability required; 6) value: mainly for GP and survivors; 7) use of SCP: limited; 8) recommendations: improve delivery process, enhance layout/content, more stakeholder input, more tailored information.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Although response rates from GP were low, those responding perceived SCP to be useful. Cancer specialists believed SCP were more valuable for GP and survivors. Process issues, especially SCP delivery, need to be improved.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8633,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajco.14038","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajco.14038","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Survivorship care plans (SCP) are recommended as integral to survivorship care but are not routinely provided in many centers. We explore whether SCP from the Sydney Cancer Survivorship Centre (SCSC) clinic was received by general practitioners (GP) and cancer specialists, and their views on SCP.

Methods

A mixed-method study comprising a quality assurance audit, a questionnaire of GP practices and GP, and semi-structured interviews of cancer specialists who referred patients to the SCSC clinic between 2019–2020. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data.

Results

The audit found 153/190 (80.5%) SCSC attendees had SCP uploaded to hospital medical records. The response rate from GP practices was 41%; among the 55 responding practices, 38 (69%) did not receive the SCP. The response rate from GP was 19%; among the 29 responding GP, 25 (86%) indicated the SCP was worthwhile, especially follow-up plans and multidisciplinary team recommendations. Analysis of 14 cancer specialist interviews identified themes of 1) awareness of SCP; 2) access: SCP difficult to locate; 3) process: access and distribution require improvement; 4) systemic issues; 5) content and layout: more concise and better readability required; 6) value: mainly for GP and survivors; 7) use of SCP: limited; 8) recommendations: improve delivery process, enhance layout/content, more stakeholder input, more tailored information.

Conclusion

Although response rates from GP were low, those responding perceived SCP to be useful. Cancer specialists believed SCP were more valuable for GP and survivors. Process issues, especially SCP delivery, need to be improved.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

幸存者护理计划的效用：探索全科医生和癌症专科医生观点的混合方法研究。

目的：幸存者关怀计划（SCP）被推荐为幸存者关怀不可或缺的一部分，但在许多中心并未常规提供。我们探讨了全科医生（GP）和癌症专家是否接受悉尼癌症幸存者中心（SSCSC）诊所提供的幸存者护理计划，以及他们对幸存者护理计划的看法：这是一项混合方法研究，包括质量保证审计、全科医生诊所和全科医生问卷调查，以及对2019-2020年间将患者转诊至SCSC诊所的癌症专家进行的半结构化访谈。定量数据采用描述性统计，定性数据采用内容分析：审计发现，153/190（80.5%）名 SCSC 患者已将 SCP 上传到医院病历中。全科医生诊所的回复率为41%；在55家回复的诊所中，有38家（69%）没有收到SCP。全科医生的回复率为 19%；在 29 位回复的全科医生中，25 位（86%）表示 SCP 是值得的，尤其是后续计划和多学科团队建议。通过对 14 位癌症专家的访谈进行分析，确定了以下主题：1）对 SCP 的认识；2）获取途径：3）过程：获取和分发需要改进；4）系统性问题；5）内容和布局：需要更简洁、可读性更好；6）价值：主要针对全科医生和幸存者；7）SCP 的使用：有限；8）建议：改进提供过程、加强布局/内容、更多利益相关者的投入、更多定制信息：尽管全科医生的回复率较低，但回复者认为 SCP 是有用的。癌症专家认为，SCP 对全科医生和幸存者更有价值。流程问题，尤其是 SCP 的提供，需要改进。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology 医学-肿瘤学

CiteScore

3.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

175

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Asia–Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal of oncology that aims to be a forum for facilitating collaboration and exchanging information on what is happening in different countries of the Asia–Pacific region in relation to cancer treatment and care. The Journal is ideally positioned to receive publications that deal with diversity in cancer behavior, management and outcome related to ethnic, cultural, economic and other differences between populations. In addition to original articles, the Journal publishes reviews, editorials, letters to the Editor and short communications. Case reports are generally not considered for publication, only exceptional papers in which Editors find extraordinary oncological value may be considered for review. The Journal encourages clinical studies, particularly prospectively designed clinical trials.