Assessing Key Stakeholders’ Knowledge, Needs, and Preferences for Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Plans
Cancer survivorship care plans (SCPs) are endorsed to support quality care for cancer survivors, but uptake is slow. We assessed knowledge, needs, and preferences for SCP content and delivery from a wide variety of stakeholders. We focused SCP content for head and neck cancer as it is a disease prone to long-term side effects requiring management from multiple providers. We conducted telephone-based, qualitative interviews. We purposively sampled head and neck cancer survivors (n = 4), primary care physicians in the community (n = 5), and providers affiliated with a large academic medical center (n = 5) who treat head and neck cancer, cancer specialists (n = 6), and nurse practitioners/supportive care staff (n = 5). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using direct content analysis. Few participants reported personal experience with SCPs, but most supported the concept. Several key themes emerged: (1) perceived ambiguity regarding roles and responsibilities for SCPs, (2) a need to tailor the content and language based on the intended recipient, (3) documentation process should be as automated and streamlined as possible, (4) concerns about using the SCP to coordinate with outside providers, and (5) that SCPs would have added value as a “living document.” We also report SCP-related issues that are unique to serving patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer. Effort is needed to tailor SCPs for different recipients and optimize their potential for successful implementation, impact on care outcomes, and sustainability. Many cancer survivors may not receive a SCP as part of routine care. Survivors could engage their health care team by requesting a SCP.
KeywordsCancer survivors Care coordination Qualitative Head and neck neoplasms Survivorship care plan Care quality
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Duke University Medical Center or the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
This study was supported with pilot funding from the Cancer Control and Population Sciences group at the Duke Cancer Institute. Dr. Zullig is supported by a VA Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Career Development Award (CDA 13-025). Dr. Bosworth is supported by a VA Research Career Scientist Award (RCS 08-027).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Zullig has received a speaker honorarium from Novartis, which was unrelated to the current work. Dr. Koontz receives research funding from Janssen Pharmaceuticals and has been on advisory boards for Blue Earth Diagnostics and Bayer Pharmaceuticals, none of which is related to the presented work. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.
Research Involving Human Participants
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.
- 2.Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2005) From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 4.Schutze H, Chin M, Weller D, Harris MF (2017) Patient, general practitioner and oncologist views regarding long-term cancer shared care. Fam Pract. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmx105
- 6.Viswanathan M, Halpern M, Swinson Evans T, Birken SA, Mayer DK, Basch E (2014) AHRQ comparative effectiveness technical briefs. In: Models of Cancer Survivorship Care. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, p 2014Google Scholar
- 11.Grunfeld E, Julian JA, Pond G, Maunsell E, Coyle D, Folkes A, Joy AA, Provencher L, Rayson D, Rheaume DE, Porter GA, Paszat LF, Pritchard KI, Robidoux A, Smith S, Sussman J, Dent S, Sisler J, Wiernikowski J, Levine MN (2011) Evaluating survivorship care plans: results of a randomized, clinical trial of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(36):4755–4762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Hershman DL, Greenlee H, Awad D, Kalinsky K, Maurer M, Kranwinkel G, Brafman L, Jayasena R, Tsai WY, Neugut AI, Crew KD (2013) Randomized controlled trial of a clinic-based survivorship intervention following adjuvant therapy in breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 138(3):795–806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Zafar SY, Abernethy AP (2013) Financial toxicity, Part I: a new name for a growing problem. Oncology (Williston Park) 27(2):80–81, 149Google Scholar
- 20.Berkowitz C, Allen DH, Tenhover J, Zullig LL, Ragsdale J 3rd, Fischer JE, Pollak KI, Koontz BF (2017) Knowledge and preferences of primary care providers in delivering head and neck cancer survivorship care. J Cancer Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1250-3