Provider perceptions and expectations of breast cancer posttreatment care: a University of California Athena Breast Health Network project
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The Athena Breast Health Network collaboration is a University of California system-wide project initiated with the intent to drive innovation in breast cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. This qualitative research examines provider perceptions and expectations of posttreatment breast cancer care across five network sites with the goal of better understanding provider behavior during the posttreatment phase of the cancer care trajectory.
Investigators at each site conducted semi-structured interviews with oncology specialists and primary care providers (PCPs). Interviews used case study examples and open- and closed-ended questions on the delivery of posttreatment breast cancer care. Informant responses were manually recorded by the interviewer, compiled in a database, then coded and analyzed using NVivo 9 software.
There were 39 key informants across the sites: 14 medical oncologists, 7 radiation oncologists, 11 surgeons, 3 oncology nurses, and 4 PCPs. Care coordination was a major unprompted theme identified in the interviews. There was a perceived need for greater care coordination across institutions in order to improve delivery of posttreatment health care services and a need for greater care coordination within oncology, particularly to help avoid duplication of follow-up care and services. Participants expect frequent follow-up visits and to use biomarker tests and advanced imaging services as part of routine surveillance care. Implementing survivorship care programs was perceived as a way to improve care delivery.
These results identify a need for increased focus on care coordination during the posttreatment phase of breast cancer care within the University of California system and the potential for system and provider-level interventions that could help increase coordination of posttreatment care.
Implications for Cancer Survivors
Breast cancer survivors do not always receive evidence-based care. This research helps to better understand what motivates provider behavior during the posttreatment phase and lays a foundation for targeted interventions to increase adherence to evidence-based recommendations.
- Siegel R, DeSantis C, Virgo K, Stein K, Mariotto A, Smith T, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(4):220–41. CrossRef
- American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures 2012. In. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2012.
- Hewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Washington: National Academies Press; 2006.
- Lafata J, Simpkins J, Schultz L, Chase G, Hohnson C, Yood M, et al. Routine surveillance care after cancer treatment with curative intent. Medical Care. 2005;43(6):592–9. CrossRef
- Cheung W, Pond G, Rother M, Krzyzanowska M, Swallow C, Brierley J, et al. Adherence to surveillance guidelines after curative resection for stage II/III colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2008;43(6):191–6. CrossRef
- Keating N, Landrum M, Guadagnoli E, Winer E, Ayanian J. Surveillance testing among survivors of early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;25(9):1074–81. CrossRef
- Cooper G, Kou T, Reynolds H. Receipt of guideline-recommended follow-up in older colorectal cancer survivors. Cancer. 2008;113(8):2029–37. CrossRef
- Mandelblatt J, Lawrence W, Cullen J, Stanton A, Krupnick J, Kwan L, et al. Patterns of care in early stage breast cancer survivors in the first year after cessation of active treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(1):77–84. CrossRef
- Grunfeld E, Hodgson D, Del Giudice M, Moineddin R. Population-based longitudinal study of follow-up care for breast cancer survivors. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2010;6(4):174–81. CrossRef
- Khatcheressian JL, Wolff AC, Smith TJ, Grunfeld E, Muss HB, Vogel VG, Halberg F, Somerfield MR, Davidson NE: American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting. In: J Clin Oncol. Volume 24, edn. United States; 2006: 5091–5097.
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines [http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#site]. Accessed 13 August 2012.
- Schnipper LE, Smith TJ, Raghavan D, Blayney DW, Ganz PA, Mulvey TM, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology identifies five key opportunities to improve care and reduce costs: the top five list for oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(14):1715–24. CrossRef
- Good Stewardship Working G. The “top 5” lists in primary care: meeting the responsibility of professionalism. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(15):1385–90. CrossRef
- Panageas K, Sima C, Liberman L, Schrag D. Use of high technology imaging for surveillance of early stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131:663–70. CrossRef
- Rojas MP, Telaro E, Russo A, Moschetti I, Coe L, Fossati R, Palli D, del Roselli TM, Liberati A: Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(1):CD001768.
- Bradley E, Curry L, Devers K. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Heal Serv Res. 2007;42(4):1758–72. CrossRef
- Caelli K, Ray L, Mill J. ‘Clear as mud’: toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2003;2(2):1–13.
- Cooper S, Endacott R. Generic qualitative research: a design for qualitative research in emergency care? Emerg Med J. 2007;24(12):816–9. CrossRef
- Patton M. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage; 1990.
- Glaser B. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl. 1965;12(4):436–45. CrossRef
- Morse J, Field P. Qualitative research methods for health professionals. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995.
- Freeman M. Constant comparative method. In: Mathison S, editor. Encyclopedia of evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005.
- Floersch J, Longhofer J, Kranke D, Townsend L. Integrating thematic, grounded theory, and narrative analysis. Qual Soc Work. 2010;9(3):407–25. CrossRef
- Grunfeld E. Optimizing follow-up after breast cancer treatment. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;21(1):92–6. CrossRef
- Earle CC, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, Weeks JC. Quality of non-breast cancer health maintenance among elderly breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(8):1447–51. CrossRef
- Margenthaler JA, Allam E, Chen L, Virgo KS, Kulkarni UM, Patel AP, et al. Surveillance of patients with breast cancer after curative-intent primary. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(2):79–83. CrossRef
- Sudsawad P: Knowledge translation: introduction to models, strategies, and measures. In. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research; 2007.
- Khoury MJ, Gwinn M, Ioannidis JP. The emergence of translational epidemiology: from scientific discovery to population health impact. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(5):517–24. CrossRef
- Provider perceptions and expectations of breast cancer posttreatment care: a University of California Athena Breast Health Network project
Journal of Cancer Survivorship
Volume 7, Issue 3 , pp 323-330
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Breast cancer posttreatment care
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Research, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCLA, 650 Charles Young Drive South, Room A2-125 CHS, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-6900, USA
- 2. University of California San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, USA
- 3. University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center, San Diego, USA
- 4. University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, USA
- 5. University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, USA