Field Of Survivorship Research Articles

Policy Brief – Survivorship is cancer survivorship the poor cousin of cancer control within the EBCP?

BackgroundThere is an increasing number of cancer survivors, including children, adolescents, young adults, individuals of working age, and the elderly, within the Belgian and European population. Yet, survivorship care and rehabilitation are often treated as an afterthought in care organisation. This not only directly affects the quality of life of survivors and carers, but also puts the sustainability of the healthcare and social security systems at risk.MethodsWe analysed the ongoing Europe Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP) to identify the actions supporting survivorship (care) developments, then compared their weight in the EBCP to the other domains of cancer control. Following this analysis, and comparison with related ongoing projects, and current infrastructure in Belgium, several unmet needs were identified.ConclusionTo better address these unmet needs, we recommend that Belgium incorporates survivorship care and long-term follow-up in clinical guidelines and care pathways, and considers including indicators related to cancer survivorship in the planning and design of quality insurance schemes, including certification of comprehensive cancer centres. Furthermore, we suggest further investment and support for research and knowledge exchange in the field of survivorship.

Fostering interspeciality learning in cancer survivorship care: Learning suite results.

e23003 Background: As survivorship provision declines within cancer centres, primary care providers are increasingly entrusted in the follow-up care of cancer survivors. Empowering specialists and primary care providers about survivorship through educational interventions is essential. Interspecialty education is poorly integrated into residency training, which may impede collaboration between different providers in practice. Interspecialty partnership can positively impact patient and resource-use outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess if a cancer survivorship learning suite (LS) impacts attitudes of family medicine, radiation oncology and medical oncology trainees towards interspecialty collaboration in Montreal, Canada. Methods: A survivorship (LS) developed by a Manitoba-based team under the sponsorship of a Canadian Partnership Against Cancer grant held by Cancer Care Ontario was delivered to 49 McGill University family medicine, radiation oncology, and medical oncology trainees. The LS comprised in-person delivery of a 3-hour case-based workshop, presented by a radiation oncologist and a family physician, both experienced in the field of survivorship. An adapted version of the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) was completed by participants before and after workshop delivery. Statistical analyses included non-parametric (Wilcoxon Signed rank tests) comparisons. Results: Response rate was 63.2%, and included family medicine (65%), radiation oncology (26%), and medical oncology (10%) trainees, respectively. Following the workshop, participants were significantly more likely to agree that interspecialty learning in residency “would help physicians become better team workers”, (Z = 2.7, p < 0.008, n = 31), and “improves relationships between physicians of different specialties in independent practice afterwards”, (Z = 2.6, p < 0.009, n = 31). Participants were also significantly more likely to agree that “shared interspecialty learning < would > increase < their > ability to understand clinical problems”, (Z = 2.8, p < 0.005, n = 31). Conclusions: While much literature has focused on interprofessional collaboration at different levels of education and practice, few studies have assessed interspecialty collaboration of physicians of different specialties. This survivorship LS demonstrated favorable changes in attitudes towards interspecialty learning.

Fostering interspeciality learning in cancer survivorship care: Learning suite results.

59 Background: As survivorship provision declines within cancer centres, primary care providers are increasingly entrusted in the follow-up care of cancer survivors. Empowering specialists and primary care providers about survivorship through educational interventions is essential. Interspecialty education is poorly integrated into residency training, which may impede collaboration between different providers in practice. Interspecialty partnership can positively impact patient and resource- use outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess if a cancer survivorship learning suite (LS) impacts attitudes of family medicine, radiation oncology and medical oncology trainees towards interspecialty collaboration in Montreal, Canada. Methods: A survivorship (LS) developed by a Manitoba-based team under the sponsorship of a Canadian Partnership Against Cancer grant held by Cancer Care Ontario was delivered to 49 McGill University family medicine, radiation oncology, and medical oncology trainees. The LS comprised in-person delivery of a 3-hour case-based workshop, presented by a radiation oncologist and a family physician, both experienced in the field of survivorship. An adapted version of the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) was completed by participants before and after workshop delivery. Statistical analyses included Wilcoxon Signed-rank test comparisons. Results: Response rate was 63.2%, and included family medicine (65%), radiation oncology (26%), and medical oncology (10%) trainees, respectively. Following the workshop, participants were significantly more likely to agree that interspecialty learning in residency “would help physicians become better team workers”, (Z = 2.7, p < 0.008, n = 31), and “improves relationships between physicians of different specialties in independent practice afterwards”, (Z = 2.6, p < 0.009, n = 31). Participants were also significantly more likely to agree that “shared interspecialty learning < would > increase < their > ability to understand clinical problems”, (Z = 2.8, p < 0.005, n = 31). Conclusions: While much literature has focused on interprofessional collaboration at different levels of education and practice, few studies have assessed interspecialty collaboration of physicians of different specialties. This survivorship LS demonstrated favorable changes in attitudes towards interspecialty learning.

Breast cancer survivors' self-reported outcomes following an end of treatment group intervention.

18 Background: The merit of supporting and educating breast cancer survivors (BCS) about survivorship issues such as cognitive dysfunction, body image concerns and fear of recurrence following treatment completion is well recognized. Though the majority of BCS appear to adjust fairly well in the long term, the transition from active treatments to survivorship is often described as distressing. While individualized interventions are typically not sustainable, group interventions provide an opportunity to inform BCS about potential late and long-term effects from cancer treatments in a supportive environment. BCS were offered an end of treatment educational group intervention (EOT). The EOT consists of a survivorship education session delivered by an MD and RN, a kit containing patient resources, as well as a survivorship care plan (SCP). BCS caregivers are welcomed to attend the EOT. This study aimed to assess BCS’ satisfaction, confidence level in managing their health, and intent to use the information received at the EOT. Methods: 18 EOTs have been provided to 83 BCS (group size range: 4 to 8 BCS, caregiver attendees not included). Participants completed a brief Likert-scale survey on a voluntary basis after the EOT. Variables of interest for included reported satisfaction, confidence and intent to use information received during the EOT. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze collected data. Results: Completed surveys were received from 69 participants (response rate 83.1%). To the survey question: “The survivorship information I received was helpful”, 72% (50) and 26% (18) responded strongly agreed and agreed, respectively. The majority of participants reported “Feeling better prepared for the next steps regarding their care” following the EOT (60% (42) strongly agreed; 33% (23) agreed). Lastly, the majority (78%) stated they were “very likely” to use the EOT information. Conclusions: Current evidence has demonstrated the feasibility and patient-related benefits of educational interventions within the field of survivorship. Our results suggest group-based interventions are efficient and effective for addressing the supportive and informational needs of BCS after treatment completion.

Perspectives of a lifelong cancer survivor—improving survivorship care

Many of the 14 million cancer survivors in the USA live with physical, emotional and day-to-day concerns related to their cancer long after their treatment ends. Addressing the needs of the growing cancer-survivor population will be a considerable task. In this article, Ruth Rechis--a 20-year survivor of Hodgkin lymphoma--describes her personal account of surviving cancer and her experience as a researcher and advocate in the field of survivorship. Results from a national USA survey on survivorship are shared, illustrating gaps in meeting the needs of long-term survivors. A list of 'essential elements' of survivorship care is highlighted to introduce all practitioners to the components necessary for the provision of care after treatment ends. Finally, Rechis provides recommendations for engaging survivors as active participants in their post-treatment, long-term survivorship care and to ensure appropriate care is universally available as part of patient-centred comprehensive care.