Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 21, Issue 9, pp 2491–2497 | Cite as

‘They’re survivors physically but we want them to survive mentally as well’: health care professionals’ views on providing potential late effect information

  • Anna Cox
  • Sara Faithfull
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The concept of providing personalised care plans for cancer survivors is receiving increasing attention; a recognised element of a care plan is to provide an indication of the risks and consequences of treatment. This paper reports health care professional (HCP) response to providing cancer survivors with information on potential late effects of their cancer treatment.

Methods

Eighteen HCPs from five cancer centres and three general practices in the UK completed semi-structured interviews which were digitally recorded, transcribed and qualitatively analysed using framework analysis.

Results

HCPs’ view of health care was that it is currently focused on acute care and needs are responded to as they may arise, including those which are late effects of cancer treatments. The concept of pre-empting a discussion of potential late effects during the survivorship phase was felt to be discordant with this approach and could impact on adjustment to life after cancer treatment.

Conclusion

Providing cancer survivors with information on potential late effects requires further consideration. Evidence for survivor preference for late effect information and the benefit afforded to survivors who receive it could inform the practice of HCPs. If a culture of proactivity is to be encouraged regarding discussions of future potential risk, HCPs may need support in considering ways of presenting survivors with reality whilst being mindful of their need to retain hope during the survivorship phase.

Keywords

Late effects Cancer Risk communication Survivorship care plans 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The service evaluation for which these data were collected was funded by Macmillan Cancer Support through the National Cancer Survivorship Initiative. The authors would like to thank the health care professionals involved in the study for their assistance and contribution.

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose. The authors have full control of all primary data and agree to allow the journal to review these data if requested.

References

  1. 1.
    National Research Council (2005) From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    GB Department of Health, Macmillan Cancer Support, and NHS Improvement (2010) Vision. Department of Health, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hahn EE, Ganz PA (2011) Survivorship programs and care plans in practice: variations on a theme. J Oncol Pract 7(2):70–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Earle CC (2006) Failing to plan is planning to fail: improving the quality of care with survivorship care plans. J Clin Oncol 24(32):5112–5116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ganz P, Casillas J, Hahn E (2008) Ensuring quality care for cancer survivors: implementing the survivorship care plan. Semin Oncol Nurs 24(3):208–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brennan M et al (2010) Survivorship care after breast cancer: follow-up practices of Australian health professionals and attitudes to a survivorship care plan. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 6(2):116–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brennan ME et al (2011) Survivorship care after breast cancer treatment—experiences and preferences of Australian women. Breast 20(3):271–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van de Poll-Franse LV et al (2011) 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 12:256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grunfeld E et al (2011) Evaluating survivorship care plans: results of a randomized, clinical trial of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(36):4755–4762PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith TJ, Snyder C (2011) Is it time for (survivorship care) plan B? J Clin Oncol 29(36):4740–4742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hill-Kayser C et al (2009) 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 11(3):e39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hill-Kayser CE et al (2010) Worldwide use of internet-based survivorship care plans. Support Oncol 6(2):10–13Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ritchie J, Spencer L (1994) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess R (eds) Analyzing qualitative data. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coué E (1922) Self mastery through conscious autosuggestion. American Library Service Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hagerty RG et al (2005) Communicating with realism and hope: incurable cancer patients' views on the disclosure of prognosis. J Clin Oncol 23(6):1278–1288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Innes S, Payne S (2009) Advanced cancer patients' prognostic information preferences: a review. Palliat Med 23(1):29–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wenninger K et al (2013) Coping in long-term survivors of childhood cancer: relations to psychological distress. Psychooncology 22(4):854–861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rutten LF et al (2010) Low awareness of and referral to national cancer information resources among physicians. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(15):1206–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hesse B, Moser R, Rutten L (2010) Surveys of physicians and electronic health information. N Engl J Med 362(9):859–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ahmed H et al (2012) Communicating risk. BMJ 344:e3996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grinyer A (2010) The late effects of mantle field radiotherapy: the information and support needs of women survivors of Hodgkin's disease. Eur J Oncol Nurs 14(3):183–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cancer Research UK (2011) Statistics and outlook for ovarian cancer. http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/type/ovarian-cancer/treatment/statistics-and-outlook-for-ovarian-cancer. Accessed Aug 2012
  23. 23.
    Hess S et al (2011) Adult survivors of childhood malignant lymphoma are not aware of their risk of late effects. Acta Oncol 50(5):653–659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenfield D et al (2009) Follow-up care for cancer survivors: the views of clinicians. Br J Cancer 101(4):568–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Watson E et al (2012) Personalised cancer follow-up: risk stratification, needs assessment or both? Br J Cancer 106(1):1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilson J, Junger G (1968) Principles and practice of screening for disease. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health and Medical SciencesUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations