Evaluation of a survivorship needs assessment planning tool for head and neck cancer survivor-caregiver dyads
- 60 Downloads
The objectives of this study were to test the acceptability and feasibility of a survivorship needs assessment planning (SNAP) tool for head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors and caregivers, evaluate short-term changes in psychosocial outcomes after completing the SNAP session, and develop strategies for system refinement.
We used a prospective one-group design and mixed methods with HNC survivors and caregivers (N = 25 dyads). Participants completed baseline and 6-week surveys before and after completing a SNAP clinic visit to assess psychosocial outcomes and acceptability. Intervention sessions included tablet-based needs assessments driving tailored care plans. Dyads’ open-ended feedback and clinician interviews (N = 12) evaluated acceptability and feasibility.
SNAP data collection time burden and technology challenges were minimal, and care plans included messages (M = 19), educational materials (M = 13), and referrals (M = 4.5; 86% behavioral medicine, 77% nutrition, 65% physical therapy). Participants reported high satisfaction with the session and care plan, highlighting the key strengths of pulling complex medical information together and the focus on caregiver well-being, with multiple suggestions to facilitate clinic workflow. Depression and unmet needs decreased and survivorship knowledge increased significantly in survivors and caregivers (p < .05) over the 6-week period.
The SNAP tool is an innovative technology-based survivor-centered strategy to assess and manage needs in HNC survivors and caregivers. Results support its acceptability and ability to address dyads’ needs; the tool merits further testing in a clinical trial.
Implications for Cancer Survivors
Technology-enabled care planning may be a productive way to assess and address HNC dyads’ dynamic needs after treatment.
KeywordsHead and neck cancer Survivorship Patient-reported outcomes Dyads
This research was funded by the National Cancer Institute (grant no. 1R21CA173271) with support from the South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute (UL1TR000062) and the Biostatistics Shared Resource of the Hollings Cancer Center (P30 CA138313) and technology development by the Technology Applications Center for Healthful Lifestyles at the Medical University of South Carolina. Katherine Sterba’s work on this manuscript was also supported by a Mentored Research Scholar Grant in Applied and Clinical Research (MRSG-12-221-01-CPPB) from the American Cancer Society.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
“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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 8.Institute of Medicine. Implementing cancer survivorship care planning workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2007.Google Scholar
- 11.National Comprehensive Cancer Network practice guidelines in oncology: head and neck cancers V.1.2018. 2018; http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/head-and-neck.pdf. Accessed 1/02/2018.
- 13.Nekhlyudov L, Lacchetti C, Davis NB, Garvey TQ, Goldstein DP, Nunnink JC, et al. Head and neck cancer survivorship care guideline: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement of the American Cancer Society guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(14):1606–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Constantinescu G, Kuffel K, King B, Hodgetts W, Rieger J. Usability testing of an mHealth device for swallowing therapy in head and neck cancer survivors. Health Informatics J. 2018:1460458218766574.Google Scholar
- 25.van den Brink JL, Moorman PW, de Boer MF, Hop WCJ, Pruyn JFA, Verwoerd CDA, et al. Impact on quality of life of a telemedicine system supporting head and neck cancer patients: a controlled trial during the postoperative period at home. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(2):198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.International Society for Quality of Life Research (prepared by Aaronson N, Elliott T, Greenhalgh J, Halyard M, Hess R, Miller D, Reeve B, Santana M, Snyder C). User’s guide to implementing patient reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice version 2. 2015. 2015; http://www.isoqol.org/researchpublications/isoqol-publications. Accessed 1/10/2018.
- 39.Rocque GB, Wisinski KB, Buhr KA, Froeschner JL, Jones N, Donohue S, et al. Development and evaluation of a survey to assess survivor knowledge change after survivorship care plans: WiSDOM-B (Wisconsin Survey of cancer DiagnOsis and Management in Breast cancer). J Cancer Educ. 2014;29(2):270–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Bodenmann G. Dyadic coping - a systemic-transactional conceptualization of stress and coping among couples: theory and empirical findings. Eur Rev Appl Psychol. 1997;47:137–40.Google Scholar
- 43.Office of Cancer Survivorship, National Cancer Institute. Follow-up care use among survivors (FOCUS) survey. http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/ocs/focus.html. Accessed 09/01/17.
- 60.Hewitt ME, Greenfield S, Stovall E. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in translation. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.Google Scholar
- 61.National Alliance of Caregiving, in partnershop with the National Cancer Institute and the Cancer Support Community. Cancer caregiving in the United States: An intense, episodic, and challenging care experience. 2016.Google Scholar