Journal of Cancer Survivorship

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 248–259

Oncology providers’ evaluation of the use of an automatically generated cancer survivorship care plan: longitudinal results from the ROGY Care trial

  • Kim A. H. Nicolaije
  • Nicole P. M. Ezendam
  • M. Caroline Vos
  • Johanna M. A. Pijnenborg
  • Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse
  • Roy F. P. M. Kruitwagen



Previous studies have merely investigated oncology providers’ a priori attitudes toward SCPs. The purpose of the current study was to longitudinally evaluate oncology providers’ expectations and actual experiences with the use of an automatically generated Survivorship Care Plan (SCP) in daily clinical practice.


Between April 2011 and October 2012, the participating oncology providers (i.e., gynecologists, gynecologic oncologists, oncology nurses) provided usual care or SCP care to 222 endometrial and 85 ovarian cancer patients included in the Registrationsystem Oncological GYnecology (ROGY) Care trial. All (n = 43) oncology providers in both arms were requested to complete a questionnaire before and after patient inclusion regarding their expectations and evaluation of SCP care.


Before patient inclusion, 38 (88 %; 21 SCP, 17 usual care), and after patient inclusion, 35 (83 %; 20 SCP, 15 usual care) oncology providers returned the questionnaire. After patient inclusion, oncology providers were generally satisfied with the SCP (M = 7.1, SD = 1.3, with 1 = not at all–10 = very much) and motivated to keep using the SCP (M = 7.9, SD = 1.5). Most providers (64 %) encountered barriers. Twenty-five percent felt they used more time for consultations (M = 7.3 min, SD = 4.6). However, self-reported consultation time did not differ between before (M = 21.8 min, SD = 11.6) and after patient inclusion (M = 18.7, SD = 10.6; p = 0.22) or between SCP care (M = 18.5, SD = 10.3) and usual care (M = 22.0, SD = 12.2; p = 0.21).


Oncology providers using the SCP were generally satisfied and motivated to keep using the SCP. However, the findings of the current study suggest that even when the SCP can be generated automatically, oncology providers still have difficulties with finding the time to discuss the SCP with their patients.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

If SCP care is indeed effective, overcoming the perceived barriers is needed before large-scale implementation in order for cancer survivors to fully benefit from the potential advantages of SCPs.


Survivorship Care Plan Cancer survivors Oncology providers Barriers Implementation ROGY Care 


  1. 1.
    Erikson C, Salsberg E, Forte G, Bruinooge S, Goldstein M. Future supply and demand for oncologists: challenges to assuring access to oncology services. J Oncol Pract. 2007;3:79–86.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Signaleringscommissie Kanker van KWF Kankerbestrijding: Kanker in Nederland tot 2020. Trends en prognoses (online attachment: 2011.
  3. 3.
    Hewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salz T, Oeffinger KC, McCabe MS, Layne TM, Bach PB. Survivorship care plans in research and practice. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:101–17.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baravelli C, Krishnasamy M, Pezaro C, Schofield P, Lotfi-Jam K, Rogers M, et al. The views of bowel cancer survivors and health care professionals regarding survivorship care plans and post treatment follow up. J Cancer Surviv. 2009;3:99–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hewitt ME, Bamundo A, Day R, Harvey C. Perspectives on post-treatment cancer care: qualitative research with survivors, nurses, and physicians. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2270–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Watson EK, Sugden EM, Rose PW. Views of primary care physicians and oncologists on cancer follow-up initiatives in primary care: an online survey. J Cancer Surviv. 2010;4:159–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kantsiper M, McDonald EL, Geller G, Shockney L, Snyder C, Wolff AC. Transitioning to breast cancer survivorship: perspectives of patients, cancer specialists, and primary care providers. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:S459–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brennan ME, Butow P, Spillane J, Boyle FM. Survivorship care after breast cancer: follow-up practices of Australian health professionals and attitudes to a survivorship care plan. Asia Pac J Clin Onc. 2010;6:116–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Birken SA, Mayer DK, Weiner BJ. Survivorship care plans: prevalence and barriers to use. J Cancer Educ. 2013;28:290–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Campbell MK, Tessaro I, Gellin M, Valle CG, Golden S, Kaye L, et al. Adult cancer survivorship care: experiences from the LIVESTRONG centers of excellence network. J Cancer Surviv. 2011;5:271–82.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ganz PA. Quality of care and cancer survivorship: the challenge of implementing the institute of medicine recommendations. J Oncol Pract. 2009;5:101–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stricker CT, Jacobs LA, Risendal B, Jones A, Panzer S, Ganz PA, et al. Survivorship care planning after the institute of medicine recommendations: how are we faring? J Cancer Surviv. 2011;5:358–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faul LA, Rivers B, Shibata D, Townsend I, Carbrera P, Quin GP, et al. Survivorship care planning in colorectal cancer: feedback from survivors and providers. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2012;30:198–216.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horning SJ. Follow-up of adult cancer survivors: new paradigms for survivorship care planning. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2008;22:201–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Earle CC. Long term care planning for cancer survivors: a health services research agenda. J Cancer Surviv. 2007;1:64–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horowitz ME, Fordis M, Krause S, McKellar J, Poplack DG. Passport for care: implementing the survivorship care plan. J Oncol Pract. 2009;5:110–2.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hill-Kayser CE, Vachani C, Hampshire MK, Jacob LA, Metz JM. 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. 2009;11:e39.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van de Poll-Franse LV, Nicolaije KAH, Vos MC, Pijnenborg JM, Boll D, Husson O, et al. 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. 2011;12:256.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ganz PA, Hahn EE. Implementing a survivorship care plan for patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:759–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tuinman MA, Gazendam-Donofrio SM, Hoekstra-Weebers JEHM. Screening and referral for psychosocial distress in oncologic practice: use of the Distress Thermometer. Cancer. 2008;113:870–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Earle CC. Failing to plan is planning to fail: improving the quality of care with survivorship care plans. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5112–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hahn EE, Ganz PA. Survivorship programs and care plans in practice: variations on a theme. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7:70–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stricker CT, Jacobs LA, Palmer SC. Survivorship care plans: an argument for evidence over common sense. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1392–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grunfeld E, Julian A, Pond G, Maunsell E, Coyle D, Folkes A, et al. Evaluating survivorship care plans: results of a randomized, clinical trial of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4755–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brothers BM, Easley A, Salani R, Andersen BL. Do survivorship care plans impact patients’ evaluations of care? A randomized evaluation with gynecologic oncology patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129:554–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim A. H. Nicolaije
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nicole P. M. Ezendam
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Caroline Vos
    • 3
  • Johanna M. A. Pijnenborg
    • 4
  • Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse
    • 1
    • 2
  • Roy F. P. M. Kruitwagen
    • 5
  1. 1.CoRPS–Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases, Department of Medical and Clinical PsychologyTilburg UniversityLE TilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Eindhoven Cancer RegistryComprehensive Cancer Center South (CCCS)EindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySt. Elisabeth HospitalTilburgThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of GynecologyTweeSteden HospitalTilburg and WaalwijkThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Gynecology and GROW–School for Oncology and Developmental BiologyMaastricht University Medical CenterMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations