Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1737–1745 | Cite as

Developing innovative models of care for cancer survivors: use of implementation science to guide evaluation of appropriateness and feasibility

  • Erin E. HahnEmail author
  • Corrine E. Munoz-Plaza
  • Joanne E. Schottinger
  • Farah M. Brasfield
  • Michael K. Gould
  • Carla Parry
Original Article



Limited understanding of factors affecting uptake and outcomes of different cancer survivorship care models hampers implementation of best practices. We conducted a formative evaluation of stakeholder-perceived acceptability and feasibility of an embedded primary care provider (PCP) survivorship care model.


We identified clinical, operational, and patient stakeholders within Kaiser Permanente Southern California and conducted semi-structured interviews. Analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), an integrated framework from the field of implementation science. Deductive thematic categories were derived a priori from CFIR domains; thematic sub-categories were developed inductively.


We interviewed 12 stakeholders; multiple themes were identified. Acceptability: oncologists and operational leaders perceived that the model was an acceptable solution to issues of capacity and efficiency with the potential to improve quality; however, several oncologists perceived negative consequences including “[loss of] the joy of medicine.” Patients were less enthusiastic, fearing the introduction of “[someone] who doesn’t know me.” Feasibility: confidence was high that this model can succeed, although there was concern about finding the right PCP and investment in training and staff support. Culture/climate: numerous system-level facilitators were identified, including encouragement of innovation and familiarity with developing new models.


Formative evaluation is a critical pre-implementation process. Acceptability and feasibility for this model were high among oncologists and operational leaders but patients were ambivalent. Keys to successful implementation include training and support of engaged PCPs and a patient transition plan introduced early in the care trajectory.


Cancer survivorship Survivorship care plans Implementation science 



This study was supported by a KPSC Care Improvement Research Team Incubator Award.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society (2016) Cancer Treatment & Survivorship Facts & Figures 2016–2017. American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giese-Davis J, Hermanson K, Koopman C, Weibel D, Spiegel D (2000) Quality of couples’ relationship and adjustment to metastatic breast cancer. J Fam Psychol 14(2):251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E (2005) From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Damaskos P, Parry C (2015) Cancer survivorship. Handbook of oncology social work. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rowland JH, Bellizzi KM (2008) Cancer survivors and survivorship research: a reflection on today’s successes and tomorrow’s challenges. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 22(2):181–200, v. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stanton AL (2006) Psychosocial concerns and interventions for cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 24(32):5132–5137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Short PF, Vasey JJ, Tunceli K (2005) Employment pathways in a large cohort of adult cancer survivors. Cancer 103(6):1292–1301. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andrykowski MA, Lykins E, Floyd A (2008) Psychological health in cancer survivors. Semin Oncol Nurs 24(3):193–201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adler N, Page A (2008) Cancer care for the whole patient: meeting psychosocial health needs. National Academies Press, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parry C, Kent EE, Mariotto AB, Alfano CM, Rowland JH (2011) Cancer survivors: a booming population. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 20(10):1996–2005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (2018) Guidelines on Survivorship Care. ASCO website,
  12. 12.
    American Cancer Society (2018) American Cancer Society Survivorship Guidelines. ACS website
  13. 13.
    Oeffinger KC, McCabe MS (2006) Models for delivering survivorship care. J Clin Oncol 24(32):5117–5124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCabe MS, Jacobs LA (2012) Clinical update: survivorship care—models and programs. Semin Oncol Nurs 28(3):e1–e8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Viswanathan M, Halpern M, et al (2014) Models of Cancer Survivorship Care. In: AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Technical Briefs. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, Report No: 14-EHC011-EFGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forsythe LP, Parry C, Alfano CM, Kent EE, Leach CR, Haggstrom DA, Ganz PA, Aziz N, Rowland JH (2013) Use of survivorship care plans in the United States: associations with survivorship care. J Natl Cancer Inst 105(20):1579–1587. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bober SL, Recklitis CJ, Campbell EG, Par ER, Kutner JS, Najita JS, Diller L (2009) Caring for cancer survivors: a survey of primary care physicians. Cancer 115(S18):4409–4418. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rubinstein EB, Mill WL et al (2017) Cancer survivorship care in advanced primary care practices: a qualitative study of challenges and opportunities. JAMA Intern Med 177(12):1726–1732. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tonorezos ES, Conigliaro J (2017) Integration of cancer survivorship care and primary care practice. JAMA Intern Med 177(12):1732–1734. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Messner C (2010) Impending oncology social worker shortage? Oncology Issues 25(5):46–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levit L, Balogh E (2013) Delivering high-quality cancer care: charting a new course for a system in crisis. National Academies Press, Washington DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parry C, Kent EE, Forsythe LP, Alfano CM, Rowland JH (2013) Can’t see the forest for the care plan: a call to revisit the context of care planning. J Clin Oncol 31(21):2651–2653. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Howell D, Hack TF, Oliver TK, Chulak T, Mayo S, Aubin M, Chasen M, Earle CC, Friedman AJ, Green E, Jones GW, Jones JM, Parkinson M, Payeur N, Sabiston CM, Sinclair S (2012) Models of care for post-treatment follow-up of adult cancer survivors: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the evidence. J Cancer Surviv 6(4):359–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Selove R, Birken SA, Skolarus TA, Hahn EE, Sales A, Proctor EK (2016) Using implementation science to examine the impact of cancer survivorship care plans. J Clin Oncol 34(32):3834–3837. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mitchell SA, Chambers DA (2017) Leveraging implementation science to improve cancer care delivery and patient outcomes. J Oncol Pract 13(8):523–529. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC (2009) Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 4:50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K (2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Admin Pol Ment Health 42(5):533–544. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rimer B, Keintz MK, Glassman B (1985) Cancer patient education: reality and potential. Prev Med 14(6):801–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L (2016) A systematic review of the use of the consolidated framework for implementation research. Implement Sci 11:72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fawzy FI, Fawzy NW, Arndt LA, Pasnau RO (1995) Critical review of psychosocial interventions in cancer care. Arch Gen Psychiatry 52(2):100–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hudson SV, Miller SM, Hemler J, Ferrante JM, Lyle J, Oeffinger KC, Dipaola RS (2012) Adult cancer survivors discuss follow-up in primary care: ‘not what I want, but maybe what I need’. Ann Fam Med 10(5):418–427. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wallner LP, Li Y, Furgal AKC, Friese CR, Hamilton AS, Ward KC, Jagsi R, Katz SJ, Hawley ST (2017) Patient preferences for primary care provider roles in breast cancer survivorship care. J Clin Oncol 35(25):2942–2948. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grunfeld E, Levine MN, Julian JA, Coyle D, Szechtman B, Mirsky D, Verma S, Dent S, Sawka C, Pritchard KI, Ginsburg D, Wood M, Whelan T (2006) Randomized trial of long-term follow-up for early-stage breast cancer: a comparison of family physician versus specialist care. J Clin Oncol 24(6):848–855. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Grunfeld E, Earle CC (2010) The interface between primary and oncology specialty care: treatment through survivorship. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010(40):25–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Research and EvaluationKaiser Permanente Southern CaliforniaPasadenaUSA
  2. 2.Regional OncologySouthern California Permanente Medical GroupPasadenaUSA
  3. 3.Patient Centered Outcomes Research InstituteWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations